I'm looking for a way to strengthen my Wi-Fi reception regardless of
the access point I'm using.
I need an antenna system with it's own power supply to strengthen the
Wi-Fi signal. Current the signal strength registers at only 20%. I
want to strengthen the reception to 100% -- or as strong as possible
-- without increasing the transmission strength.
Ideally, I would like the transmission strength to be the minimum
required to access the internet but with the reception strength being
the maximum possible. I don't mind if the my internet speed is slow
due to weak transmission.
Where I live, there is a coffee shop that allows free use of their
open wireless access point. So if the signal being received by my
network adapter is intense enough, I'd by able to access the net via
the coffee shop from my residence.
A. Is there a way to amplify the received wireless radio signal after
it has been picked by an antenna and then feed the strengthened signal
into the WG311NAR adapter? If so, then it wouldn't matter whether or
not the antenna is directional. Are there any devices that will do
this? I've heard of wireless repeaters that will boost and then re-
transmit radio signals but I don't want this because they will also
amplify the radio signal my adapter transmits.
B. If such a device does not exist, then I would like to purchase a
wireless adapter with the following characteristics:
1. The strength of the transmitted wireless carrier signal is the
minimum required in order to access the net
2. The amplitude of the modulation signal about to be imposed on the
wireless carrier signal about to be transmitted should be the minimum
required in order to access the net
3. It doesn't matter to me whether the adapter uses one antenna or two
antennae. In either case, however, reception should involve the use of
an omni-directional antenna that picks up signals in all directions.
4. It doesn't matter to me whether the antenna[e] is [are] external or
internal
5. It doesn't matter to me whether the wireless adapter is internal
[e.g. PCI] or external [e.g. USB]
6. The antenna-gain or sensitivity does not matter to me
7. The strength of the received carrier signal does not matter to me
8. Amplification of the received wireless radio signal should be done
after de-modulation. After de-modulation -- the resulting electric
signal should amplified as much as physically-possible without
damaging the wireless adapter. This will provide a relatively
efficient wireless internet access while consuming relatively little
power and transmitting a relatively weak radio signal. This process
will also generated relatively little radio-frequency interference.
If the hypothetical device in A does exist, from where can I purchase
it?
If the hypothetical device in A does not exist, which wireless adapter
should I buy?
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On 2/21/2011 4:53 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I have this network adapter -- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833122382
> -- WG311NAR
>
> I'm looking for a way to strengthen my Wi-Fi reception regardless of
> the access point I'm using.
>
> I need an antenna system with it's own power supply to strengthen the
> Wi-Fi signal. Current the signal strength registers at only 20%. I
> want to strengthen the reception to 100% -- or as strong as possible
> -- without increasing the transmission strength.
>
> Ideally, I would like the transmission strength to be the minimum
> required to access the internet but with the reception strength being
> the maximum possible. I don't mind if the my internet speed is slow
> due to weak transmission.
>
> Where I live, there is a coffee shop that allows free use of their
> open wireless access point. So if the signal being received by my
> network adapter is intense enough, I'd by able to access the net via
> the coffee shop from my residence.
>
> A. Is there a way to amplify the received wireless radio signal after
> it has been picked by an antenna and then feed the strengthened signal
> into the WG311NAR adapter? If so, then it wouldn't matter whether or
> not the antenna is directional. Are there any devices that will do
> this? I've heard of wireless repeaters that will boost and then re-
> transmit radio signals but I don't want this because they will also
> amplify the radio signal my adapter transmits.
>
> B. If such a device does not exist, then I would like to purchase a
> wireless adapter with the following characteristics:
>
> 1. The strength of the transmitted wireless carrier signal is the
> minimum required in order to access the net
>
> 2. The amplitude of the modulation signal about to be imposed on the
> wireless carrier signal about to be transmitted should be the minimum
> required in order to access the net
>
> 3. It doesn't matter to me whether the adapter uses one antenna or two
> antennae. In either case, however, reception should involve the use of
> an omni-directional antenna that picks up signals in all directions.
>
> 4. It doesn't matter to me whether the antenna[e] is [are] external or
> internal
>
> 5. It doesn't matter to me whether the wireless adapter is internal
> [e.g. PCI] or external [e.g. USB]
>
> 6. The antenna-gain or sensitivity does not matter to me
>
> 7. The strength of the received carrier signal does not matter to me
>
> 8. Amplification of the received wireless radio signal should be done
> after de-modulation. After de-modulation -- the resulting electric
> signal should amplified as much as physically-possible without
> damaging the wireless adapter. This will provide a relatively
> efficient wireless internet access while consuming relatively little
> power and transmitting a relatively weak radio signal. This process
> will also generated relatively little radio-frequency interference.
>
> If the hypothetical device in A does exist, from where can I purchase
> it?
>
> If the hypothetical device in A does not exist, which wireless adapter
> should I buy?
>
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
> Green Xenon
Do a Google search for the word cantenna and you should find what you
are looking for. Yes, I said cantenna, not antenna.
You should be able to purchase or build something along the lines of
what you need based on what the above search finds for you.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:53:56 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ideally, I would like the transmission strength to be the minimum
>required to access the internet but with the reception strength being
>the maximum possible. I don't mind if the my internet speed is slow
>due to weak transmission.
My crystal ball is a bit foggy on what you're trying to accomplish. If
you just want improved receive gain, then my guess(tm) is that you're
sniffing the traffic at the coffee shop. Please find someone else to
help you with this endevour.
>Where I live, there is a coffee shop that allows free use of their
>open wireless access point. So if the signal being received by my
>network adapter is intense enough, I'd by able to access the net via
>the coffee shop from my residence.
Make up your mind. If you can barely hear the coffee shop access
point, they probably can't hear you any better.
Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
Google for some kind of DIRECTIONAL external antenna with an RP-SMA
connector or pigtail. Keep the coax cable as fat and as short as
practical:
<http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=251>
<http://www.fab-corp.com/home.php?cat=255>
If you want cheap junk, I've bought a few of these with fair results
(I had to resolder the coax connector on all of them and the 1/4-20
threaded nut for the tripod mount fell apart).
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180476863637>
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180478833768>
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 21, 4:58*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:53:56 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
>
> <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ideally, I would like the transmission strength to be the minimum
> >required to access the internet but with the reception strength being
> >the maximum possible. I don't mind if the my internet speed is slow
> >due to weak transmission.
>
> My crystal ball is a bit foggy on what you're trying to accomplish. If
> you just want improved receive gain, then my guess(tm) is that you're
> sniffing the traffic at the coffee shop. *Please find someone else to
> help you with this endevour.
No sniffing. I just want to access the internet wirelessly without
buying a router of my own. I want to be as anonmymous while using the
internet.
>
> >Where I live, there is a coffee shop that allows free use of their
> >open wireless access point. So if the signal being received by my
> >network adapter is intense enough, I'd by able to access the net via
> >the coffee shop from my residence.
>
> Make up your mind. *If you can barely hear the coffee shop access
> point, they probably can't hear you any better.
I need and want them and me to hear each other clear enough that I can
access the internet through their system.
>
> Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
>
Everyone does. Otherwise the shop would be more restrictive of who
uses their internet service. Think encryption.
>> Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
>
>Everyone does. Otherwise the shop would be more restrictive of who
>uses their internet service. Think encryption.
Sounds to me like everyone has access, but not everyone has
permission. You usually need to be an active customer.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:48:03 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>No sniffing. I just want to access the internet wirelessly without
>buying a router of my own. I want to be as anonmymous while using the
>internet.
Even if you purchased a wireless router, you still will not have
access to the internet. You'll need an ISP (internet service
provider). What you really want is an internet connection without
paying for it, or without buying anything at the coffee shop. I
maintain a few coffee shop type wireless systems. You're the type of
customer that gives me the most headaches.
This has what to do with privacy? What do you have to hide?
Privacy... well, your IP address resolves to:
cpe-98-154-37-244.socal.res.rr.com
which puts you on Road Runner somewhere in Southern California.
Running traceroute points to the Brea area of Orange County.
ge17-0-breaca1-ars2.socal.rr.com
Nice area. Considering that you're looking for a free internet
connection, my guess(tm) is that his cable modem connection doesn't
belong to you, that you may not have permission, or that Road Runner
is about to jack up the price on you after the trial period ends.
>The answer should be waiting for you.
It's not. I read your drivel and found nothing useful, relevant, or
interesting. I'll be happy to continue debating your personal
problems, but methinks you'll find it more useful to concentrate on
the wireless problem.
>I need and want them and me to hear each other clear enough that I can
>access the internet through their system.
Have you ever considered the possibility that they don't want to hear
you? Some of the local hot spots have the transmit power turned down
on the access point to prevent freeloaders from accessing the system
from the parking lot or nearby apartments.
>> Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
>Everyone does. Otherwise the shop would be more restrictive of who
>uses their internet service. Think encryption.
Ok, you don't have permission. Please research "theft of service".
<http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=wi-fi+"theft+of+service">
I'm sure the patrons of the coffee shop will complain while you
monopolize most of the available bandwidth.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 21, 7:17*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:48:03 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
>
> <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >No sniffing. I just want to access the internet wirelessly without
> >buying a router of my own. I want to be as anonmymous while using the
> >internet.
>
> Even if you purchased a wireless router, you still will not have
> access to the internet. *You'll need an ISP (internet service
> provider). *What you really want is an internet connection without
> paying for it, or without buying anything at the coffee shop. *I
> maintain a few coffee shop type wireless systems. *You're the type of
> customer that gives me the most headaches.
I already have internet service of my own. I have an account with Time
Warner Cable. RoadRunner.
My name and face, while being brutally honest about my hatred of
society's irrational norms. No comment on which norms I'm against.
>
> Privacy... well, your IP address resolves to:
> * cpe-98-154-37-244.socal.res.rr.com
> which puts you on Road Runner somewhere in Southern California.
> Running traceroute points to the Brea area of Orange County.
> * ge17-0-breaca1-ars2.socal.rr.com
> Nice area. *Considering that you're looking for a free internet
> connection, my guess(tm) is that his cable modem connection doesn't
> belong to you, that you may not have permission, or that Road Runner
> is about to jack up the price on you after the trial period ends.
No. I'm paying for my own internet service. I could care less about
money. It's my privacy that I'm concerned about. I also don't want
Time Warner cutting off my service after receiving complaints from the
moderators/administrators of chat rooms due to my perverse text.
Worse, I don't want some ordinary person, organizing a lynch mob and
burning me alive -- and people will do that if they know my
personality. They will do this to make a name for themselves.
>
> >The answer should be waiting for you.
>
> It's not. *I read your drivel and found nothing useful, relevant, or
> interesting. *I'll be happy to continue debating your personal
> problems, but methinks you'll find it more useful to concentrate on
> the wireless problem.
Both are useful.
>
> >I need and want them and me to hear each other clear enough that I can
> >access the internet through their system.
>
> Have you ever considered the possibility that they don't want to hear
> you? *Some of the local hot spots have the transmit power turned down
> on the access point to prevent freeloaders from accessing the system
> from the parking lot or nearby apartments.
That's why I need a very sensitive reception system.
>
> >> Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
> >Everyone does. Otherwise the shop would be more restrictive of who
> >uses their internet service. Think encryption.
>
> Ok, you don't have permission. *Please research "theft of service". *
> <http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=wi-fi+"theft+of+service">
> I'm sure the patrons of the coffee shop will complain while you
> monopolize most of the available bandwidth.
Most? No way. Text does not take up much bandwidth. All I plan to do
is write text in chat rooms. I doubt the cafe staff will care enough
to complain. I would like to use a maximum bandwidth of only 50 Kbps
-- to show that I respect the owners of the coffee shop. Is there a
way to tweak my wireless adapter so I'm not using more than 50 kbps of
service from the shop?
On the other hand, people in the chat rooms reading my text -- who I
gravely disrespect -- will want to fry me due to the deviance of the
stuff I'd like to write. These evil people in the chat rooms will
launch large amounts of emotional complaints -- to the chat service
provider [such as Yahoo], chat admins [who actively monitor text
written in the chat room], and the cafe's ISP -- against me.
What will happen if the ISP of the coffee shop refuses to take any
action against my activity? This is where things get very interesting.
People in the chat rooms will go crazy. They'll start marching on the
streets and violently protesting. They will demand that the government
make new laws. New laws rendering the socially-unacceptable stuff I
write illegal. These people will form lynch mobs forcing the enactment
of new legislations and draconian penalties against the stuff I'd like
to write in chat rooms [which currently don't violate any law].
Am I right?
Currently that stuff I'd like to write in chat rooms is totally-legal.
However, laws can change and that is not good for me.
Bottom line -- I don't plan to do anything that will make the patrons
of the coffee shop uncomfortable. However, I do plan to write stuff in
chat rooms that will rock readers to their very cores. Stuff that if I
ever said on the street, I'd be tossed into the local incinerator by
an angry puritanical lynch mob.
Exactly. That's why I need so much anonymity. So I can write dirty
filthy sick things in chat rooms that would otherwise get me into a a
LOT of trouble with society and its evil puritans.
>
> >> Do you have the permission of the coffee shop to use their system?
>
> >Everyone does. Otherwise the shop would be more restrictive of who
> >uses their internet service. Think encryption.
>
> Sounds to me like everyone has access, but not everyone has
> permission. You usually need to be an active customer.
I am a customer I buy stuff from the coffee shop all the time.
Paying for internet service is not the issue here. I'm already doing
that. It's my location and identity that I want concealed.
If I wrote the stuff here that I'd like to write in chat rooms, my ISP
would be forced to ban me permanently. The text I want to post is just
so sick that any human being would want me dead.
If I post in chat rooms using the cafe's internet access, it will be
very difficult for the puritans to figure me out. So difficult it
won't be worth their time, energy, or money.
What is the minimum amount of bandwidth required to post text in chat
rooms? In another post I said I'd like to limit my usage of cafe to
only 50 kbps. Now I want to go even low than that. I want to use the
least necessary for real-time transmission/reception of text in chat
rooms. Is 1-bit-per-second too low? If so, what is the lowest I can
get while still pissing off my chat-enemies in real-time?
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:17:23 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, 6:38*pm, Char Jackson <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sounds to me like everyone has access, but not everyone has
>> permission. You usually need to be an active customer.
>
>I am a customer I buy stuff from the coffee shop all the time.
But only for very small values of "all the time", I'm guessing. So
here's an idea. Go visit the coffee shop and buy something. You can
use the Wi-Fi while you're there. If you want to use more Wi-Fi, you
can buy more 'somethings'. Once you leave the cafe, your permission to
use their Wi-Fi likely ends.
>If I wrote the stuff here that I'd like to write in chat rooms, my ISP
>would be forced to ban me permanently. The text I want to post is just
>so sick that any human being would want me dead.
The help you seek isn't necessarily the help you apparently need.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On 22/02/2011 2:55 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:17:23 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
> <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 21, 6:38 pm, Char Jackson<n...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds to me like everyone has access, but not everyone has
>>> permission. You usually need to be an active customer.
>>
>> I am a customer I buy stuff from the coffee shop all the time.
>
> But only for very small values of "all the time", I'm guessing. So
> here's an idea. Go visit the coffee shop and buy something. You can
> use the Wi-Fi while you're there. If you want to use more Wi-Fi, you
> can buy more 'somethings'. Once you leave the cafe, your permission to
> use their Wi-Fi likely ends.
>
>> If I wrote the stuff here that I'd like to write in chat rooms, my ISP
>> would be forced to ban me permanently. The text I want to post is just
>> so sick that any human being would want me dead.
>
> The help you seek isn't necessarily the help you apparently need.
>
Having read his post my first thought was " not a chance pal"
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
In article
<ded8d495-1e1d-4246-a3cf-27869a817635@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
GreenXenon <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
> What will happen if the ISP of the coffee shop refuses to take any
> action against my activity? This is where things get very interesting.
> People in the chat rooms will go crazy. They'll start marching on the
> streets and violently protesting. They will demand that the government
> make new laws. New laws rendering the socially-unacceptable stuff I
> write illegal. These people will form lynch mobs forcing the enactment
> of new legislations and draconian penalties against the stuff I'd like
> to write in chat rooms [which currently don't violate any law].
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 21, 3:53*pm, GlowingBlueMist <GlowingBlueM...@itruely.invalid>
wrote:
> Do a Google search for the word cantenna and you should find what you
> are looking for. *Yes, I said cantenna, not antenna.
>
> You should be able to purchase or build something along the lines of
> what you need based on what the above search finds for you.
Is there a way to tweak the WG311NAR adapter so that I won't using
more bps -- than needed for my application -- of bandwidth from the
coffee shop? I want to be fair to the cafe's patrons. I don't care if
my connection is as slow -- or slower than -- dial-up. Currently,
despite the weak reception, my speed is around 2 mbps. Thats too high
and is not fair for the staff of the coffee shop.
I need just enough speed to be able to write in IRC chat rooms. I plan
to do text-only chat. No videos, music, pics, games, etc.
What is the minimum speed required for real-time text-only IRC chat?
It should be fast enough that when I post a message, everyone in the
chat room should immediately see it and when someone else posts text,
I should see it immediately. However, the connection should not be
faster than this.
Once again, I want to show that I appreciate the free service the
coffee shop provides. The best way to do this -- while still using
their internet connection -- is to limit how much bandwidth I use.
Is there any software compatible with WinXP SP3 and the WG311NAR
adapter that I could use, to slow the speed to down to the minimum
required for my application? What is the minimum speed necessary for
text-only chat?
Also, I need some IP-spoofing software which I can download for free.
I don't want people tracking my net activity based on my credit card
number, checking account, or other entities that can identify me --
this is extremely dangerous to my safety because it can be used
against me.
I want IP-spoofing software because chat rooms can ban me based on my
IP. If I keep changing my IP and assign a random IP to myself, it will
be very difficult for the chat admins to kick me out. In addition, it
will be close to impossible for chat-enemies to boot me.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On 2/22/2011 10:57 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Feb 21, 3:53 pm, GlowingBlueMist<GlowingBlueM...@itruely.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Do a Google search for the word cantenna and you should find what you
>> are looking for. Yes, I said cantenna, not antenna.
>>
>> You should be able to purchase or build something along the lines of
>> what you need based on what the above search finds for you.
>
>
> Yes. I just purchased a Cantenna from http://www.wirelessgardenstore.com/product-p/scb10x.htm
>
> However, I have some more questions.
>
> Is there a way to tweak the WG311NAR adapter so that I won't using
> more bps -- than needed for my application -- of bandwidth from the
> coffee shop? I want to be fair to the cafe's patrons. I don't care if
> my connection is as slow -- or slower than -- dial-up. Currently,
> despite the weak reception, my speed is around 2 mbps. Thats too high
> and is not fair for the staff of the coffee shop.
>
> I need just enough speed to be able to write in IRC chat rooms. I plan
> to do text-only chat. No videos, music, pics, games, etc.
>
> What is the minimum speed required for real-time text-only IRC chat?
> It should be fast enough that when I post a message, everyone in the
> chat room should immediately see it and when someone else posts text,
> I should see it immediately. However, the connection should not be
> faster than this.
>
> Once again, I want to show that I appreciate the free service the
> coffee shop provides. The best way to do this -- while still using
> their internet connection -- is to limit how much bandwidth I use.
>
> Is there any software compatible with WinXP SP3 and the WG311NAR
> adapter that I could use, to slow the speed to down to the minimum
> required for my application? What is the minimum speed necessary for
> text-only chat?
>
> Also, I need some IP-spoofing software which I can download for free.
> I don't want people tracking my net activity based on my credit card
> number, checking account, or other entities that can identify me --
> this is extremely dangerous to my safety because it can be used
> against me.
>
> I want IP-spoofing software because chat rooms can ban me based on my
> IP. If I keep changing my IP and assign a random IP to myself, it will
> be very difficult for the chat admins to kick me out. In addition, it
> will be close to impossible for chat-enemies to boot me.
The connect speed is not the issue. It is the total bandwidth
available. If you pre-write the text file, connect, get into the chat
area, and send the text and disconnect, the bandwidth you actually use
is small.
One thing, if you truly are about to raise the rabble as you say, figure
that the coffee shop will get their connection pulled just as fast as
yours would be. So, you will be doing a disservice to them and their
patrons.
(All actions have consequences, even free speech. Nut up and stand
behind what you say, or don't say it.)
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On 2/22/2011 12:57 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Feb 21, 3:53 pm, GlowingBlueMist<GlowingBlueM...@itruely.invalid>
> wrote:
<Snip>
> Yes. I just purchased a Cantenna from http://www.wirelessgardenstore.com/product-p/scb10x.htm
>
> However, I have some more questions.
>
> Is there a way to tweak the WG311NAR adapter so that I won't using
> more bps -- than needed for my application -- of bandwidth from the
> coffee shop? I want to be fair to the cafe's patrons. I don't care if
> my connection is as slow -- or slower than -- dial-up. Currently,
> despite the weak reception, my speed is around 2 mbps. Thats too high
> and is not fair for the staff of the coffee shop.
I don't believe the adapter can be controlled to slow things down but XP
can by using a program like is shown at: http://bandwidthcontroller.com/trafficShaperXp.html
I believe their personal edition is freeware but I have not tried using it.
>
> I need just enough speed to be able to write in IRC chat rooms. I plan
> to do text-only chat. No videos, music, pics, games, etc.
>
> What is the minimum speed required for real-time text-only IRC chat?
> It should be fast enough that when I post a message, everyone in the
> chat room should immediately see it and when someone else posts text,
> I should see it immediately. However, the connection should not be
> faster than this.
Trial and error slowing things down or starting as slow as the above
software will allow and see how it goes.
> Once again, I want to show that I appreciate the free service the
> coffee shop provides. The best way to do this -- while still using
> their internet connection -- is to limit how much bandwidth I use.
>
> Is there any software compatible with WinXP SP3 and the WG311NAR
> adapter that I could use, to slow the speed to down to the minimum
> required for my application? What is the minimum speed necessary for
> text-only chat?
It all depends on your chat software. Does it send the data character
by character, line-by-line, or everything typed into a buffer after
being told to send it. Again trial and error would be all I can offer
but if you are set too slow I'm sure someone will comment on it.
> Also, I need some IP-spoofing software which I can download for free.
> I don't want people tracking my net activity based on my credit card
> number, checking account, or other entities that can identify me --
> this is extremely dangerous to my safety because it can be used
> against me.
Proxy's using VPN connections are available but on most free WiFi spots
if you spoof/change your Ethernet MAC address they assign a different IP
address each time. Many hot spots just do it automatically on each
connection to them. If they get around to banning your MAC address in
their router then I suppose you could change it to get back on. As for
credit card numbers and such, using encryped web site connections is the
only way to go. Https at a minimum and VPN tunneling at the best but
many routers are configured to not allow VPN tunneling.
GreenXenon, I don't feel comfortable discussing these things so I will
not be responding to any future questions. Good luck with your quest.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Rich Johnson <ri...@remove.this.tairedd.com>
wrote:
> The connect speed is not the issue. *It is the total bandwidth
> available. *If you pre-write the text file, connect, get into the chat
> area, and send the text and disconnect, the bandwidth you actually use
> is small.
Excellent.
>
> One thing, if you truly are about to raise the rabble as you say, figure
> that the coffee shop will get their connection pulled just as fast as
> yours would be. *So, you will be doing a disservice to them and their
> patrons.
Just out of curiosity, what would happen if the coffee shop's ISP
totally-refuses to disconnect the cafe? This is what really intrigues.
Despite receiving emotionally-charged complaints from my enemies, the
ISP continues to allow the cafe access to the internet -- and
therefore I can keep pestering my enemies.
Let's say the above scenario of me teasing and taunting my chat-
enemies continues for a year. What would be the responses from society
and the legal system, if the ISP continues to allow the coffee shop
access to the internet?
My guess is that the media will get involved and there will be mass
societal outrage. The streets will be filled with furious puritanical
buttholes who will violently protest, throw rocks, pelt stones, and
start fires. How cool!
Public uproar and lynch mobs will force the enactment of new laws
causing what I would like to write in chat rooms [currently legal] to
be considered a HEINOUS crime. After the new legislation is passed,
the law will no longer allow me to pester my chat enemies.
After the new legislation is enacted, anyone writing what I'd like to
write [in chat rooms] will be named and shamed for the rest of their
lives and their identity will be made public.
>
> (All actions have consequences, even free speech. *
Sadly, you're right.
> Nut up and stand
> behind what you say, or don't say it.)
No thanks. I don't want to be burnt alive by those nasty puritans.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:01:45 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>No. I'm paying for my own internet service. I could care less about
>money.
If you don't care about the money, why not get a 2nd cable modem, a
DSL line, a cellular modem, or a satellite internet provider? These
all cost money, but will provide what you want.
>It's my privacy that I'm concerned about.
You're using the wrong term. It's not privacy that you're seeking.
It's anonymity. There's a difference.
>I also don't want
>Time Warner cutting off my service after receiving complaints from the
>moderators/administrators of chat rooms due to my perverse text.
That's why you should get a 2nd internet connection. With your main
connection, you can act perfectly sane and rational. With the other,
you can do your internet terrorism or whatever.
>Worse, I don't want some ordinary person, organizing a lynch mob and
>burning me alive -- and people will do that if they know my
>personality. They will do this to make a name for themselves.
Where do I sign up for the lynch mob? Methinks you're overly
concerned. There are easily identifiable spammers, that are making
life miserable for many very important people, that are still alive.
What makes you so important that someone will go out of their way to
suppress your blather?
>Most? No way. Text does not take up much bandwidth. All I plan to do
>is write text in chat rooms. I doubt the cafe staff will care enough
>to complain. I would like to use a maximum bandwidth of only 50 Kbps
>-- to show that I respect the owners of the coffee shop. Is there a
>way to tweak my wireless adapter so I'm not using more than 50 kbps of
>service from the shop?
Bad news. One of the features of Wi-Fi is that it slows down as the
signal deteriorates. users in side the coffee shop will probably be
connecting fairly close to 54Mbits/sec, while your long distance
connection will run at the 1Mbit/sec end. In other words, you're
going 54 times as slow, or using 54 times as much air time as the
other users. Your long distance connection will probably produce a
substantial number of retries and retransmissions, which will make
things even worse. I've done the test several times and found that a
single 802.11b slow connection, can bring an 802.11g network almost to
a stop.
Incidentally, one of the ways I keep long distance connections off of
my coffee shop customers networks is to limit the connection speed to
24Mbits/sec or faster. It works just fine inside the coffee shop, but
barely functions as the range increases.
>What will happen if the ISP of the coffee shop refuses to take any
>action against my activity?
Try again. There's probably nothing in the ISP's terms of service
that include differences of opinion or chat room nonsense. If you
want to get into threats of violence, child ****ography, and such,
then the ISP usually turns over the investigation to the authorities.
Try not to threaten someone and you'll be fine.
>Am I right?
Nope. Nobody really cares about your opinions in a chat room.
Everyone writes, but nobody reads.
>Bottom line -- I don't plan to do anything that will make the patrons
>of the coffee shop uncomfortable.
Bottom line. You want anonymity and you expect the coffee shop to
provide it for you at no cost. If anything goes wrong, you expect
them to take the flak. Nice try.
>However, I do plan to write stuff in
>chat rooms that will rock readers to their very cores.
Nobody cares.
>Stuff that if I
>ever said on the street, I'd be tossed into the local incinerator by
>an angry puritanical lynch mob.
Incinerators are illegal due to air pollution problems. In my town,
we use more sophisticated methods.
<http://www.mercurynews.com/central-coast/ci_17162148>
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 22, 6:20*pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:01:45 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
>
> <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >No. I'm paying for my own internet service. I could care less about
> >money.
>
> If you don't care about the money, why not get a 2nd cable modem, a
> DSL line, a cellular modem, or a satellite internet provider? *These
> all cost money, but will provide what you want. *
Ok. A cellular modem. Where can I find that?
>
> >It's my privacy that I'm concerned about.
>
> You're using the wrong term. *It's not privacy that you're seeking.
> It's anonymity. *There's a difference.
Yeah.
>
> >Worse, I don't want some ordinary person, organizing a lynch mob and
> >burning me alive -- and people will do that if they know my
> >personality. They will do this to make a name for themselves.
>
>
> What makes you so important that someone will go out of their way to
> suppress your blather?
>
Because of the deviant nature of the text. Readers will want me dead.
>
> >What will happen if the ISP of the coffee shop refuses to take any
> >action against my activity?
>
> Try again. *There's probably nothing in the ISP's terms of service
> that include differences of opinion or chat room nonsense. *If you
> want to get into threats of violence, child ****ography, and such,
> then the ISP usually turns over the investigation to the authorities.
> Try not to threaten someone and you'll be fine.
The stuff I'd like to write is threat-free.
****ography, by definition, involves the use of sexual imagery --
whether in the form of pictures or videos. Text is not considered ****
even if it is of a sexual nature.
Anyways, I want to punish bad guys by writing text in live chat rooms
that is perfectly-legal, ethical, benign, non-threatening, non-
violent, non-insulting, non-offensive, and non-incriminating -- but
extremely societally-taboo/unacceptable and sexually-perverse/deviant.
Here are the "bad guys" who I'd like to punish with my societally-
taboo/unacceptable and sexually-perverse/deviant text:
1. Gangs -- such as MS-13
2. Hardened criminals
3. Street thugs
4. Lynch mobs
5. Schoolyard bullies
6. Other cold-hearted trouble-makers
7. Pretty much any human being who gains pleasure from misusing his/
her power
I hate the above 7 categories of people and want to frustrate them to
no end by writing my stuff in live chat rooms.
If I were in the ghettos of downtown LA and I said the things on the
street -- that I'd like to write in chat rooms -- I'd be burnt alive
and no one would care.
>
> >Am I right?
>
> Nope. *Nobody really cares about your opinions in a chat room.
> Everyone writes, but nobody reads.
"Bad guys" do care about my opinion because they want to burn me alive
for my personality -- mostly to make a name for themselves.
Those who think like me tend to be bullied by society once their
thoughts are revealed to the public.
>
> >However, I do plan to write stuff in
> >chat rooms that will rock readers to their very cores.
>
> Nobody cares.
>
If I expressed myself on the street, people would terrorize me for
harboring the thoughts that I have.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
GreenXenon wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:20 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:01:45 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
>>
>> <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No. I'm paying for my own internet service. I could care less about
>>> money.
>
>
>> If you don't care about the money, why not get a 2nd cable modem, a
>> DSL line, a cellular modem, or a satellite internet provider? These
>> all cost money, but will provide what you want.
>
>
> Ok. A cellular modem. Where can I find that?
>
>
>>> It's my privacy that I'm concerned about.
>> You're using the wrong term. It's not privacy that you're seeking.
>> It's anonymity. There's a difference.
>
>
> Yeah.
>
>
>>> Worse, I don't want some ordinary person, organizing a lynch mob and
>>> burning me alive -- and people will do that if they know my
>>> personality. They will do this to make a name for themselves.
>
>
>> What makes you so important that someone will go out of their way to
>> suppress your blather?
>>
>
>
> Because of the deviant nature of the text. Readers will want me dead.
>
>
>>> What will happen if the ISP of the coffee shop refuses to take any
>>> action against my activity?
>
>
>> Try again. There's probably nothing in the ISP's terms of service
>> that include differences of opinion or chat room nonsense. If you
>> want to get into threats of violence, child ****ography, and such,
>> then the ISP usually turns over the investigation to the authorities.
>> Try not to threaten someone and you'll be fine.
>
>
> The stuff I'd like to write is threat-free.
>
> ****ography, by definition, involves the use of sexual imagery --
> whether in the form of pictures or videos. Text is not considered ****
> even if it is of a sexual nature.
>
> Anyways, I want to punish bad guys by writing text in live chat rooms
> that is perfectly-legal, ethical, benign, non-threatening, non-
> violent, non-insulting, non-offensive, and non-incriminating -- but
> extremely societally-taboo/unacceptable and sexually-perverse/deviant.
>
> Here are the "bad guys" who I'd like to punish with my societally-
> taboo/unacceptable and sexually-perverse/deviant text:
>
> 1. Gangs -- such as MS-13
> 2. Hardened criminals
> 3. Street thugs
> 4. Lynch mobs
> 5. Schoolyard bullies
> 6. Other cold-hearted trouble-makers
> 7. Pretty much any human being who gains pleasure from misusing his/
> her power
>
> I hate the above 7 categories of people and want to frustrate them to
> no end by writing my stuff in live chat rooms.
>
> If I were in the ghettos of downtown LA and I said the things on the
> street -- that I'd like to write in chat rooms -- I'd be burnt alive
> and no one would care.
>
>
>>> Am I right?
>
>
>> Nope. Nobody really cares about your opinions in a chat room.
>> Everyone writes, but nobody reads.
>
>
> "Bad guys" do care about my opinion because they want to burn me alive
> for my personality -- mostly to make a name for themselves.
>
> Those who think like me tend to be bullied by society once their
> thoughts are revealed to the public.
>
>
>>> However, I do plan to write stuff in
>>> chat rooms that will rock readers to their very cores.
>
>
>> Nobody cares.
>>
>
>
> If I expressed myself on the street, people would terrorize me for
> harboring the thoughts that I have.
Instead of wasting all that time and energy spewing venom why don't you
DO something USEFUL? Work in a food bank. Help out a meals on wheels
operation. Anything that HELPS others. As Jeff pointed out no one
really cares what you think.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 22, 11:29*pm, LouB <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Instead of wasting all that time and energy spewing venom why don't you
> DO something USEFUL?
Can't get more useful than punishing the scum of society.
* *
> As Jeff pointed out no one
> really cares what you think.
They may not care but they would still react violently if said what
I'd like to say.
I don't even think I need to boost the reception of my wireless
network. In fact, I don't need to use a wireless network at all. I can
just use my cable modem account and mask my IP address.
On one of my computer's I'm currently using Tor and Vidalia -- which I
just downloaded and installed. I did this because lost my temper
against evil society. After installing the aforementioned softwares, I
said some very deviant things in a Yahoo chat room. Needless to say, I
got was I was looking for and my IP was hidden. I didn't do anything
illegal but just extremely anti-social.
Here are the responses I got from my enemies:
1. "Die you ****ing pervert"
2. "You sick ****"
3. "I'm calling the cops"
4. "Sicko"
5. "You are one poor excuse for a human being"
6. "You sub-human animal"
7. "Don't ever let me catch you in my neighborhood"
8. "Hope we never meet on the street"
9. "Plan on being visited soon"
10. "Report the sick *******"
11. "Nasty perv"
There were many more emotionally-charged responses from my enemies.
Reading those responses relieved me of my own anger. I was frustrating
society the same way society frustrates me. I felt I was getting even
with society by writing such filth in the chat room. Now my enemies
will try desperately -- yet fail miserably -- to associate my profile
with my identity. They're probably losing sleep over the stuff I
wrote.
So long as society pisses me off, I will continue to piss off society
via my taboo chat room text.
Since the stuff I wrote is totally non-threatening, there is nothing
the law can do to stop me. The 1st amendment permits me to write
whatever I want in chat rooms as long as I'm not making threats. Sure
it maybe societally-unacceptable but at the same time it is perfectly
legal.
Hopefully, new legislation rendering my activities illegal will not be
passed in the future.
What about society pisses me off? Dress codes in social events. That's
my major pet peeve. Society doesn't accept me because of the way I
dress. In revenge, I attack society by writing dirt in chat rooms.
Society has a choice, either modify your rules to accommodate mentally-
ill individuals like me, or face punishment. I have a mental illness
call Autism/Asperger's. That's AFAIK. I probably have other mental
disabilities. In fact, I probably have all the mental handicaps, in
the book and additional psychiatric conditions that have not been
discovered or named yet. In any case, society should simply adjust to
the needs of psychiatric patients -- like me.
So long as society continues to outcast psychiatric patients, society
can except to face extreme retaliation. It's society's fault, not the
patients.
Patients -- including me -- will refuse to be the bigger and better
person. We will keep stooping down to society's low level. Hopefully,
more and more patients will do as I do and society will go insane and
become a patient of its own.
Society should provide free, immediate, and high-quality mental care
to psychiatric patients. Till then, expect more perverse chat room
text from me and my ilk.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
In article
<1271aa7b-a18c-439f-a962-d93dfdff3fe7@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
GreenXenon <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
> ****ography, by definition, involves the use of sexual imagery --
> whether in the form of pictures or videos. Text is not considered ****
> even if it is of a sexual nature.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On 2/22/2011 1:33 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, Rich Johnson<ri...@remove.this.tairedd.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The connect speed is not the issue. It is the total bandwidth
>> available. If you pre-write the text file, connect, get into the chat
>> area, and send the text and disconnect, the bandwidth you actually use
>> is small.
>
>
> Excellent.
>
>
>>
>> One thing, if you truly are about to raise the rabble as you say, figure
>> that the coffee shop will get their connection pulled just as fast as
>> yours would be. So, you will be doing a disservice to them and their
>> patrons.
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, what would happen if the coffee shop's ISP
> totally-refuses to disconnect the cafe? This is what really intrigues.
> Despite receiving emotionally-charged complaints from my enemies, the
> ISP continues to allow the cafe access to the internet -- and
> therefore I can keep pestering my enemies.
>
> Let's say the above scenario of me teasing and taunting my chat-
> enemies continues for a year. What would be the responses from society
> and the legal system, if the ISP continues to allow the coffee shop
> access to the internet?
>
> My guess is that the media will get involved and there will be mass
> societal outrage. The streets will be filled with furious puritanical
> buttholes who will violently protest, throw rocks, pelt stones, and
> start fires. How cool!
>
> Public uproar and lynch mobs will force the enactment of new laws
> causing what I would like to write in chat rooms [currently legal] to
> be considered a HEINOUS crime. After the new legislation is passed,
> the law will no longer allow me to pester my chat enemies.
>
> After the new legislation is enacted, anyone writing what I'd like to
> write [in chat rooms] will be named and shamed for the rest of their
> lives and their identity will be made public.
>
>
>>
>> (All actions have consequences, even free speech.
>
>
> Sadly, you're right.
>
>
>> Nut up and stand
>> behind what you say, or don't say it.)
>
>
> No thanks. I don't want to be burnt alive by those nasty puritans.
You don't know businesses very well. They tend to avoid controversy.
There is a hassle factor as well in providing a hot spot. If the value
of providing that service goes to a negative, then even if the ISP
doesn't pull the service, the business will. (That would even include
McDonalds, a client that an ISP would not pull.)
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:03:09 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok. A cellular modem. Where can I find that?
Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and other cellular providers. It's usually a
USB device that plugs into a laptop or computah. You pay by the
kilobyte, so it can get rather expensive, but for simple chat room
texting (no graphics), it will probably be just fine, especially if
you can use telnet or other text based entry point. If your chat room
is graphics based, and spews advertisements while you're using it,
you'll rapidly overshoot your monthly data quota. However, since
price is not object with your obsession, running over the quota and
paying through the nose should not be a problem.
Some background info:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_broadband>
<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2343913,00.asp>
>> What makes you so important that someone will go out of their way to
>> suppress your blather?
>Because of the deviant nature of the text. Readers will want me dead.
I notice the Ossama bin Ladin is still alive. I suspect you can do as
well, unless you have some sort of death wish. Suicide by chat room
is a bit bizarre, but I've of stranger things.
>****ography, by definition, involves the use of sexual imagery --
Holdit... As I previously indicated, nobody really cares about your
opinion. That includes me. This is not a chat room. If you have
technical difficulties with wireless, I'll be glad to help. Off topic
discussions should go to the appropriate newsgroup.
>If I expressed myself on the street, people would terrorize me for
>harboring the thoughts that I have.
I suspect you would be ignored, unless you posed a hazard to traffic,
navigation, or public safety. Were you to publicly expound the
philosophies of famous past prophets or radicals, you would only be
stared at in amazement or perhaps panhandled for a contribution. If
extremely good, you would be solicited by prospective press agents,
publicity managers, and attorneys. If you're going to be a successful
prophet of self-doom, some concessions to modern times and progress
will be necessary.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:45:39 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>Society should provide free, immediate, and high-quality mental care
>to psychiatric patients. Till then, expect more perverse chat room
>text from me and my ilk.
I thought you could get free medical care in USA ?
Just visit your GP, tell him about your thoughts, they can't
do anything against you if you have not harmed anyone. They will
probably prescribe something to make you feel better.
That is what doctors are for.
Give yourself a chance.
[]'s
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Feb 23, 5:52*pm, Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:45:39 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
>
> <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Society should provide free, immediate, and high-quality mental care
> >to psychiatric patients. Till then, expect more perverse chat room
> >text from me and my ilk.
>
> * * * * I thought you could get free medical care in USA ?
> * * * * Just visit your GP, tell him about your thoughts, *theycan't
> do anything against you if you have not harmed anyone. They will
> probably prescribe something to make you feel better.
> * * * * That is what doctors are for.
> * * * * Give yourself a chance.
> * * * * []'s
Due to strict legal limits on confidentiality, I'm very hesitant to
express my societally-unacceptable thoughts to any therapist,
psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor etc.
This is because, if the thoughts are deviant, the aforementioned
people are required -- by society's irrational rules -- to inform
authorities. This is true, even if the patient is NOT threatening to
commit a crime AND has NOT confessed those people about having
committed a crime.
Also, in the unlikely-but-theroetically-possible event that I'm
accused [even falsely] of committing a crime, the aforementioned
people will likely be forced -- by society's irrational rules -- to
reveal my thoughts in the court room. This would be used to persuade a
jury into finding me guilty. My life would then be in danger
regardless of where my location. People would form gangs and burn me
to a crisp. The lives of my family and friends would also be at stake.
The mental health care system needs to be modified so that patients
can reveal any and all thoughts -- including the most perverted --
without these thoughts being used against them in the legal system.
I've never broken any laws and never plan to. However, if I have any
perverse thoughts, and I express them to the mental health staff, they
have an obligation to report them to authorities -- despite the fact
that I'm totally-innocent in the legal-sense.
Re: Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 17:29:49 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * * * * I thought you could get free medical care in USA ?
>> * * * * Just visit your GP, tell him about your thoughts, *they can't
>> do anything against you if you have not harmed anyone. They will
>> probably prescribe something to make you feel better.
>> * * * * That is what doctors are for.
>> * * * * Give yourself a chance.
>> * * * * []'s
>
>
>Due to strict legal limits on confidentiality, I'm very hesitant to
>express my societally-unacceptable thoughts to any therapist,
>psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor etc.
I've been a doctor for over 30 years and have never revealed
anything spoken in my office. Well, once a patient hit me with a
chair, and I had to call the police, but even so, the content of our
medical talk remained unrevealed. But then, I don't practice in the
USA.
Follow-ups to sci.med.psychobiology please. That's where mad
people discuss things.
:)
[]'s
OT: What does Jeff Lieberman think of this hypothetical internetcoffee shop?
Jeff Lieberman:
I’m currently daydreaming of a new type of public internet café. This
internet café is in hypothetical shopping mall similar to the Brea
Mall in the Brea city of Southern California of USA. The floors and
walls are carpeted with black carpet throughout the mall – excluding
the restrooms and food courts – where carpet would be obviously
difficult to keep clean.
There are as many PCs in this café as there are chairs. All chairs as
comfortable [and with the most luxurious, convenient and healthy
features as one can get – such as wheels and adjustable height]. This
of type of chair is commonly used in offices.
Each PC has a dial-up controller-based [i.e. purely-hardware] modem.
All PCs in this Café are *desktop* and the tables are mounted to the
wall. For anonymity, each PC has its own wearable monitor. This is a
plasma-based monitor which looks like virtual-reality goggles. To
maintain health of the eyes, this monitor has a reverse-telescope lens
[which makes the visual-entities on the monitor more distant from the
user’s eyes]. To make those visual-entities easier to see, a
microscope lens is used. One lens is place in front of this tiny
wearable monitor, while the other lens is placed in front of that
lens. Of course, both lenses are inside this monitor. This plasma
monitor has the following has anti-burn-in technology, is 1080p-
compatible, and has the fastest refresh rate possible.
The internet access is free dial-up only. This is to help maintain
anonymity and for the IP addresses to be dynamic. There are ISPs that
voluntarily provide dial-up for free and without the customer needing
to set up an account – simply dial the number and you’re connected.
This means, it will be more difficult for the ISP to cut off service
to the café due to clients venting their anger and attacking chat
rooms with socially-unacceptable text.
Each PC, modem, and telephone line have the following characteristics:
1. The only ROM is mask-programmed ROM
2. The only RAM is a hypothetical form of volatile RAM chips in which
all info is completely lost in 100th-of-a-second-or-less after the
netbook is turned-off. Even theoretically there is no way to recover
this data unless one completely re-powers before 100th-of-a-second
after power-off.
3. The OS is installed on ROM chips
4. All IDs -- such as the MAC addresses [including that of the dial-up
modem], the CPUID, IP address etc. -- are totally dynamic. When the
netbook is powered-offed, these IDs disappear without leaving a trace.
When the netbook is switched on, new IDs are generated. In addition,
this netbook uses the least amount of IDs and timestamps required to
operate itself and access the internet.
5. There is no malware [e.g. rootkits] installed in any of the ROM
chips.
6. Chips of the hypothetical RAM listed in #3 substitute for the HDD
7. The clock skew of the PC varies such that clock-skew-fingerprinting
would be a totally-useless technique to those trying to identify the
computer.
8. Uses dumb terminals for dial-up internet access
9. Chips of the hypothetical RAM listed in #2 substitute for the HDD
10. There is absolutely no hint of:
A. ActiveX
B. Internet Explorer
C. Java
D. JavaScript
E. Audio software/hardware
F. Software/hardware for images, graphics, animation, or movies
G. Webcam capability
H. Flash
J. Shockwave
I. HTML
K. DHTML
L. Any type of scripting/scripts
M. Any type of mark-up/modeling language.
11. The chat software [which is built into a ROM chip] is fully
compatible with everything in #10. In addition, this chat protocol has
the following characteristics:
A. No download/installation of anything necessary
B. Does not require ActiveX or Internet Explorer
C. Does not use or require Java or JavaScript
D. Most difficult for other chatters to figure out my IP address, MAC
address, and other electronic IDs.
E. Is text-only [not able to transmit/receive files, images, or other
nonsense]
F. Does not allow uploading/downloading to/from other chatters
G. Does not allow one individual to message another individual.
H. Does not have any IM/PM capability [when I post my message, I want
everyone in the chat room to see it. In addition, I just hate it when
other chatters PM/IM me.]
I. Is real-time - i.e. I post my message and those in the room can
immediately reply to me.
J. Transmits/receives small amounts of text rapidly - unlike Usenet
which transmits/receives large amounts of text slowly.
K. Allows me to be nameless and still access the chat rooms with a
blank screen name.
L. Does not give away my email address
M. Does not allow access to audio/video - e.g. no webcam capability
N. Does not require an email address for confirmation
O. Does not use or require HTML, DHMTL, or anything similar
P. Does not require any login or password
Q. Does not require registration
R. Uses the least amount of bandwidth, memory, and CPU power.
12. The modem is for dial-up internet access and is an MPSK-based.
Most modems use QAM but the modems in this hypothetical café’s PCs use
MPSK with the most amounts of bits-per-symbol possible without the bit-
error-rate getting too high.
QAM = Quadrature-Amplitude-Modulaton
MPSK = Multiple-Phase-Shift- Keying.
13. Each PC has its own modem and each modem has its own telephone
line. Each phone line has its own phone number and ANI [Automatic
Number Identification]. The ANI, phone numbers, and other telephony
IDs are all dynamic – i.e. once the PC disconnects from the internet,
these IDs disappear without leaving a trace. Prior to re-connection,
new random IDs are generated. Once again, the least amount of IDs
necessary are used – for example, there is no caller ID.
14. All the electronics in the café are as eco-friendly as possible.
This means heavy reliance on hash, ROM, and look-up tables.
15. All electronics in the coffee shop are tempest-shielded to assist
in maintain anonymity.
Use of internet in this café is not free. Users must pay in quarters.
Each PC has its own coin slot, where customers insert coins prior to
using the PC. The PC does not accept credit cards, debit, or other
forms of electronic payment – due to security risks. In addition, the
PCs don’t accept dollar bills or checks – here is why. Bills and
checks are made of paper [which can burn at high-temperatures].
So what are these high-temperatures required for? To erase
fingerprints, DNA, hair, body-oils, and other forms of evidence that
would be on the coins from customers using them. As soon as the coins
are inserted, permission to use the computer is granted. Right after
the insertion, the coins are efficiently and safely heated until hot
enough to completely obliterate any biological or chemical evidence on
them.
After the coins are heated, they are then efficiently cooled to a
temperature safe for handling. After cooling, these coins then pass
through a device that collects coins from all PCs and shuffles them to
make it much more difficult to figure out which computer the coin came
from.
This hypothetical café does not monitor or log any internet activity.
Though the café’ patrons don’t have to pay for internet access, they
*do* have to pay the telephone company for providing the lines. To
maintain anonymity for the coffee shop, its patrons, and customers,
the staff pay the phone company in quarters only. From the PCs
directly to the location of the phone company, there is a device that
will physically transport coins. Of course this process is slow but it
gets the job done. So in using the PCs, the customers are providing
the money for the shop’s internet access.
Re: OT: What does Jeff Lieberman think of this hypothetical internetcoffee shop?
On Mar 3, 11:56*am, GreenXenon <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 11. The chat software [which is built into a ROM chip] is fully
> compatible with everything in #10. In addition, this chat protocol has
> the following characteristics:
>
> A. No download/installation of anything necessary
> B. Does not require ActiveX or Internet Explorer
> C. Does not use or require Java or JavaScript
> D. Most difficult for other chatters to figure out my IP address, MAC
> address, and other electronic IDs.
> E. Is text-only [not able to transmit/receive files, images, or other
> nonsense]
> F. Does not allow uploading/downloading to/from other chatters
> G. Does not allow one individual to message another individual.
> H. Does not have any IM/PM capability [when I post my message, I want
> everyone in the chat room to see it. In addition, I just hate it when
> other chatters PM/IM me.]
> I. Is real-time - i.e. I post my message and those in the room can
> immediately reply to me.
> J. Transmits/receives small amounts of text rapidly - unlike Usenet
> which transmits/receives large amounts of text slowly.
> K. Allows me to be nameless and still access the chat rooms with a
> blank screen name.
> L. Does not give away my email address
> M. Does not allow access to audio/video - e.g. no webcam capability
> N. Does not require an email address for confirmation
> O. Does not use or require HTML, DHMTL, or anything similar
> P. Does not require any login or password
> Q. Does not require registration
> R. Uses the least amount of bandwidth, memory, and CPU power.
Let's add another:
S. Generates random usernames for chat rooms and does not allow users
to choose their names – this measure prevent impersonation of real
people. These random usernames consist of random characters.
Re: OT: What does Jeff Lieberman think of this hypothetical internet coffee shop?
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:56:01 -0800 (PST), GreenXenon
<glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Lieberman:
It would be helpful if you spelled my name correctly.
>I’m currently daydreaming of a new type of public internet café.
Give up. Nobody is going to pay for dialup access at dialup speeds.
Everything else is window dressing. Most of your ideas sound like
unenforceable micromanagment, irrelevant drive, or science fiction,
none of which is going to fly.
The basic problem with any internet cafe is making money. I have
several as clients. Most such places cannot sell enough overpriced
coffee and munchies to make a profit. In order to be profitable, they
have to either charge by the minute, or have a high turnover on the
tables. Laptop and computah users in general are table hogs, and will
monopolize a table for hours, while buying the absolute minimum
required. Even systems that offer "one hour internet for an $$$
purchase" will fail as the coffee shop is usually not setup to enforce
their own rules. One of my clients shuts down the Wi-Fi when the
place gets crowded to clear out the table hogs.
However, I can see why you like the idea of the carpeting climbing up
the walls. It kinda suggests a padded cell or drunk tank.
Now, go away. I have a terabyte of data to recover off a slowly dying
disk drive for $$$$.
Questions about Wi-Fi adapters, amplifiers, and antennae 
Linear Mode
