<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_2012233</id>
	<title>Fast Wi-Fi's Slow Road To Standardization</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260434040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike contributes this excerpt from <em>Computerworld</em>: <i>"For a technology that's all about being fast, 802.11n Wi-Fi sure took its sweet time to become a standard, writes Steven J. Vaughan Nichols. In fact, until September 2009, it wasn't, officially, even a standard. But that didn't stop vendors from implementing it for several years beforehand, causing confusion and upset when networking gear that used draft standards from different suppliers wouldn't always work at the fastest possible speed when connected. It wasn't supposed to be that way. But, for years, the Wi-Fi hardware big dogs <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141692/802.11n\_Fast\_Wi\_Fi\_s\_long\_tortuous\_road\_to\_standardization\_">fought over the 802.11n protocol like it was a chew toy</a>. The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition. The delay was never over the technology. In fact, the technical tricks that give 802.11n its steady connection speeds of 100Mbps to 140Mbps have been well-known for years."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike contributes this excerpt from Computerworld : " For a technology that 's all about being fast , 802.11n Wi-Fi sure took its sweet time to become a standard , writes Steven J. Vaughan Nichols .
In fact , until September 2009 , it was n't , officially , even a standard .
But that did n't stop vendors from implementing it for several years beforehand , causing confusion and upset when networking gear that used draft standards from different suppliers would n't always work at the fastest possible speed when connected .
It was n't supposed to be that way .
But , for years , the Wi-Fi hardware big dogs fought over the 802.11n protocol like it was a chew toy .
The result : it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition .
The delay was never over the technology .
In fact , the technical tricks that give 802.11n its steady connection speeds of 100Mbps to 140Mbps have been well-known for years .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike contributes this excerpt from Computerworld: "For a technology that's all about being fast, 802.11n Wi-Fi sure took its sweet time to become a standard, writes Steven J. Vaughan Nichols.
In fact, until September 2009, it wasn't, officially, even a standard.
But that didn't stop vendors from implementing it for several years beforehand, causing confusion and upset when networking gear that used draft standards from different suppliers wouldn't always work at the fastest possible speed when connected.
It wasn't supposed to be that way.
But, for years, the Wi-Fi hardware big dogs fought over the 802.11n protocol like it was a chew toy.
The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition.
The delay was never over the technology.
In fact, the technical tricks that give 802.11n its steady connection speeds of 100Mbps to 140Mbps have been well-known for years.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393756</id>
	<title>Wi-fi</title>
	<author>The Ancients</author>
	<datestamp>1260437880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>= Wi-fight?</p><p>Guess not.</p><p>Are we due for a new, faster, standard now, since it has been 5 years for this to come to fruition? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>= Wi-fight ? Guess not.Are we due for a new , faster , standard now , since it has been 5 years for this to come to fruition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>= Wi-fight?Guess not.Are we due for a new, faster, standard now, since it has been 5 years for this to come to fruition? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394036</id>
	<title>Re:Blueray of Wifi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260439080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How's that HD video streaming working out for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How 's that HD video streaming working out for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How's that HD video streaming working out for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395398</id>
	<title>Blame the Manufacturers</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1260444180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the moniker of "open standard" every vendor who contributes to these standards and who has "voting" authority on them have to maintain their business interests.  802.11n was held up more for business reasons, members are competitors remember, where some didn't have product available.  They obviously want to make sure that their engineering and pre-manufacturing ramp ups are in line before the standard is released.  Like 802.11n, this didn't stop many vendors from releasing "pre standard" products as soon as the RF standards were put into place.  In reality it then becomes a firmware or driver issue to become compliant once the status is released.</p><p>If the standards boards were truly "open" then they'd get the standards drafted, agreed to and voted on in short order.  The reality is that they need the industry experts and those experts also have to maintain their company's interests.  It won't change, just learn to live with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the moniker of " open standard " every vendor who contributes to these standards and who has " voting " authority on them have to maintain their business interests .
802.11n was held up more for business reasons , members are competitors remember , where some did n't have product available .
They obviously want to make sure that their engineering and pre-manufacturing ramp ups are in line before the standard is released .
Like 802.11n , this did n't stop many vendors from releasing " pre standard " products as soon as the RF standards were put into place .
In reality it then becomes a firmware or driver issue to become compliant once the status is released.If the standards boards were truly " open " then they 'd get the standards drafted , agreed to and voted on in short order .
The reality is that they need the industry experts and those experts also have to maintain their company 's interests .
It wo n't change , just learn to live with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the moniker of "open standard" every vendor who contributes to these standards and who has "voting" authority on them have to maintain their business interests.
802.11n was held up more for business reasons, members are competitors remember, where some didn't have product available.
They obviously want to make sure that their engineering and pre-manufacturing ramp ups are in line before the standard is released.
Like 802.11n, this didn't stop many vendors from releasing "pre standard" products as soon as the RF standards were put into place.
In reality it then becomes a firmware or driver issue to become compliant once the status is released.If the standards boards were truly "open" then they'd get the standards drafted, agreed to and voted on in short order.
The reality is that they need the industry experts and those experts also have to maintain their company's interests.
It won't change, just learn to live with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394254</id>
	<title>Lack of Demand</title>
	<author>Isaac-1</author>
	<datestamp>1260440100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the problem is lack of demand, how many people need the speed, for that matter how many people need the speed of 802.11G.  These days everything seems to be about streaming media, at home people stream media off the internet, or for the more geeky stream it off a media server.  So do they really need a wireless connection that is 50 times faster than a typical home broadband connection, particularly when these N routers are over twice the price of their G counterparts.</p><p>Ike</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the problem is lack of demand , how many people need the speed , for that matter how many people need the speed of 802.11G .
These days everything seems to be about streaming media , at home people stream media off the internet , or for the more geeky stream it off a media server .
So do they really need a wireless connection that is 50 times faster than a typical home broadband connection , particularly when these N routers are over twice the price of their G counterparts.Ike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the problem is lack of demand, how many people need the speed, for that matter how many people need the speed of 802.11G.
These days everything seems to be about streaming media, at home people stream media off the internet, or for the more geeky stream it off a media server.
So do they really need a wireless connection that is 50 times faster than a typical home broadband connection, particularly when these N routers are over twice the price of their G counterparts.Ike</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804</id>
	<title>Not the first time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Betamax vs. VHS, HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, now Wi-Fi draft N versus finalized standard draft N.
<br> <br>
Open standards are a good thing.  They avoid these kinds of problems.  They promote interoperability.  They also force vendors to compete on the merits of their implementations of those standards instead of competing on the basis of who is better at customer lock-in.  It also lessens but does not remove the competition of who is the best at marketing.
<br> <br>
If you care about assigning blame, it lies squarely on the people who purchased draft-N hardware.  Whether they realized it or not, they were using their wallets to vote for this behavior.  Those purchasing decisions reward this kind of behavior and make it profitable.  Give companies the choice of agreeing on a standard or making no sales and they will agree on a standard every time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Betamax vs. VHS , HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray , now Wi-Fi draft N versus finalized standard draft N . Open standards are a good thing .
They avoid these kinds of problems .
They promote interoperability .
They also force vendors to compete on the merits of their implementations of those standards instead of competing on the basis of who is better at customer lock-in .
It also lessens but does not remove the competition of who is the best at marketing .
If you care about assigning blame , it lies squarely on the people who purchased draft-N hardware .
Whether they realized it or not , they were using their wallets to vote for this behavior .
Those purchasing decisions reward this kind of behavior and make it profitable .
Give companies the choice of agreeing on a standard or making no sales and they will agree on a standard every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Betamax vs. VHS, HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, now Wi-Fi draft N versus finalized standard draft N.
 
Open standards are a good thing.
They avoid these kinds of problems.
They promote interoperability.
They also force vendors to compete on the merits of their implementations of those standards instead of competing on the basis of who is better at customer lock-in.
It also lessens but does not remove the competition of who is the best at marketing.
If you care about assigning blame, it lies squarely on the people who purchased draft-N hardware.
Whether they realized it or not, they were using their wallets to vote for this behavior.
Those purchasing decisions reward this kind of behavior and make it profitable.
Give companies the choice of agreeing on a standard or making no sales and they will agree on a standard every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394670</id>
	<title>Re:Drama...?</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1260441600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely better than Lost, and also better than Heros after season 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely better than Lost , and also better than Heros after season 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely better than Lost, and also better than Heros after season 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395130</id>
	<title>Re:Unimpressed with 802.11n</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1260443160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware, very nice.</p></div><p>The WL520GU is a great router even with the native firmware. I was going to put DD-WRT on it, but read that the processor speed would be limited. Have you had any issues with Tomato?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware , very nice.The WL520GU is a great router even with the native firmware .
I was going to put DD-WRT on it , but read that the processor speed would be limited .
Have you had any issues with Tomato ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware, very nice.The WL520GU is a great router even with the native firmware.
I was going to put DD-WRT on it, but read that the processor speed would be limited.
Have you had any issues with Tomato?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395294</id>
	<title>N router</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1260443820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get my N router tomorrow and I cant wait to try it out!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get my N router tomorrow and I cant wait to try it out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get my N router tomorrow and I cant wait to try it out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394204</id>
	<title>Re:Drama...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260439860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear HBO has hired someone to write a season or two based on the whole ordeal. Rumours are it will be called "N" and the tagline will be "Wi the Fi is this taking so long?". It's not above any of the normal problems that HBO shows have. You know, the kind where there is a secret love plot between two characters that have no influence on the story whatsoever. Or the writers write in a love scene, and then it gets cut short for commercial breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear HBO has hired someone to write a season or two based on the whole ordeal .
Rumours are it will be called " N " and the tagline will be " Wi the Fi is this taking so long ? " .
It 's not above any of the normal problems that HBO shows have .
You know , the kind where there is a secret love plot between two characters that have no influence on the story whatsoever .
Or the writers write in a love scene , and then it gets cut short for commercial breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear HBO has hired someone to write a season or two based on the whole ordeal.
Rumours are it will be called "N" and the tagline will be "Wi the Fi is this taking so long?".
It's not above any of the normal problems that HBO shows have.
You know, the kind where there is a secret love plot between two characters that have no influence on the story whatsoever.
Or the writers write in a love scene, and then it gets cut short for commercial breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908</id>
	<title>Blueray of Wifi</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260438480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BG is good enough , tied to residential/office network , and hard to notice the benefit of N .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393812</id>
	<title>Wi-fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Between crap home routers and microwaves knocking out my signal I'm just sticking to good ole fashioned cables. Wifi has been nothing but a headache in the years I've used it. Give me a good ethernet cable anyday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Between crap home routers and microwaves knocking out my signal I 'm just sticking to good ole fashioned cables .
Wifi has been nothing but a headache in the years I 've used it .
Give me a good ethernet cable anyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between crap home routers and microwaves knocking out my signal I'm just sticking to good ole fashioned cables.
Wifi has been nothing but a headache in the years I've used it.
Give me a good ethernet cable anyday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398160</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first time</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1260463020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you serious?   How do you create a 'open stranded'?  IEEE Is as viable a entity to do so as any.  For example the Linux community or the FOSS community can't create a stranded for dirt.  For hardware it's even worse.   They want anyone to be able to change or add to any part of it if any person thinks it might be a improvement.  The whole point of such a hardware/firmware  stranded is so
Joe Smith can buy a router and know it will work with his NIC and give the best speeds supported.   I don't really get want you mean by open standard, open and standard don't really go together.   You have to get some hardware vendors behind you or a group with some weight to endorse a standard or anyone will just come up with their own 6 months later and try to obsolete yours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
How do you create a 'open stranded ' ?
IEEE Is as viable a entity to do so as any .
For example the Linux community or the FOSS community ca n't create a stranded for dirt .
For hardware it 's even worse .
They want anyone to be able to change or add to any part of it if any person thinks it might be a improvement .
The whole point of such a hardware/firmware stranded is so Joe Smith can buy a router and know it will work with his NIC and give the best speeds supported .
I do n't really get want you mean by open standard , open and standard do n't really go together .
You have to get some hardware vendors behind you or a group with some weight to endorse a standard or anyone will just come up with their own 6 months later and try to obsolete yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
How do you create a 'open stranded'?
IEEE Is as viable a entity to do so as any.
For example the Linux community or the FOSS community can't create a stranded for dirt.
For hardware it's even worse.
They want anyone to be able to change or add to any part of it if any person thinks it might be a improvement.
The whole point of such a hardware/firmware  stranded is so
Joe Smith can buy a router and know it will work with his NIC and give the best speeds supported.
I don't really get want you mean by open standard, open and standard don't really go together.
You have to get some hardware vendors behind you or a group with some weight to endorse a standard or anyone will just come up with their own 6 months later and try to obsolete yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30396576</id>
	<title>Re:History Repeats Itself</title>
	<author>RedLeg</author>
	<datestamp>1260449040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed it does.... and you don't know the half of it.</p><p>IEEE operates with a completely different dynamic from what most internet folks are used to.</p><p>One of the big motivations for a company to sponsor a participant (an engineer, by paying him to prepare and to attend) is to get the company's intellectual property incorporated into the standard under development as a MUST.  This is all above board, and the companies must declare up front if they believe they have IP in a proposal and to agree that if adopted they will license the IP to implementers at "fair and reasonable" rates.</p><p>When there is only one proposal, or when one is clearly superior, live is good and things typically move along smoothly.</p><p>On the other hand, when there are multiple proposals with relatively equal technical merit, it can drag out.</p><p>This happened in g, and in again in n.</p><p>We narrowly headed it off in i....  At one point the, the AES cypher in the draft as a MUST was OCB (Offset Code Book), and incumbered by no less than three independent patents.  This had two implications that several of us strenuously objected to:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - First, implementers would have had to license three times to be certain they were in the clear, thus increasing the cost of the chips and the end product.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Second, since the open source community has no real way to execute said license agreements or to pay royalties, this would have guaranteed that it would have been impossible for there to be a "legal" open source implementation.</p><p>In the end, we prevailed and the AES cypher in the spec is CCMP, which is not encumbered.</p><p>Sadly, this is just the way it is..... at least in -some- standards organizations.</p><p>Red</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed it does.... and you do n't know the half of it.IEEE operates with a completely different dynamic from what most internet folks are used to.One of the big motivations for a company to sponsor a participant ( an engineer , by paying him to prepare and to attend ) is to get the company 's intellectual property incorporated into the standard under development as a MUST .
This is all above board , and the companies must declare up front if they believe they have IP in a proposal and to agree that if adopted they will license the IP to implementers at " fair and reasonable " rates.When there is only one proposal , or when one is clearly superior , live is good and things typically move along smoothly.On the other hand , when there are multiple proposals with relatively equal technical merit , it can drag out.This happened in g , and in again in n.We narrowly headed it off in i.... At one point the , the AES cypher in the draft as a MUST was OCB ( Offset Code Book ) , and incumbered by no less than three independent patents .
This had two implications that several of us strenuously objected to :         - First , implementers would have had to license three times to be certain they were in the clear , thus increasing the cost of the chips and the end product .
        - Second , since the open source community has no real way to execute said license agreements or to pay royalties , this would have guaranteed that it would have been impossible for there to be a " legal " open source implementation.In the end , we prevailed and the AES cypher in the spec is CCMP , which is not encumbered.Sadly , this is just the way it is..... at least in -some- standards organizations.Red</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed it does.... and you don't know the half of it.IEEE operates with a completely different dynamic from what most internet folks are used to.One of the big motivations for a company to sponsor a participant (an engineer, by paying him to prepare and to attend) is to get the company's intellectual property incorporated into the standard under development as a MUST.
This is all above board, and the companies must declare up front if they believe they have IP in a proposal and to agree that if adopted they will license the IP to implementers at "fair and reasonable" rates.When there is only one proposal, or when one is clearly superior, live is good and things typically move along smoothly.On the other hand, when there are multiple proposals with relatively equal technical merit, it can drag out.This happened in g, and in again in n.We narrowly headed it off in i....  At one point the, the AES cypher in the draft as a MUST was OCB (Offset Code Book), and incumbered by no less than three independent patents.
This had two implications that several of us strenuously objected to:
        - First, implementers would have had to license three times to be certain they were in the clear, thus increasing the cost of the chips and the end product.
        - Second, since the open source community has no real way to execute said license agreements or to pay royalties, this would have guaranteed that it would have been impossible for there to be a "legal" open source implementation.In the end, we prevailed and the AES cypher in the spec is CCMP, which is not encumbered.Sadly, this is just the way it is..... at least in -some- standards organizations.Red</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394338</id>
	<title>History Repeats Itself</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1260440460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same thing happened with 802.11g.  I remember going through four 802.11g PCI cards before finding one that could communicate with my 802.11g router at a distance of more than three feet.  I was not aware that the devices were pre-draft (they didn't state "pre-draft" on the packaging like they do now), so I did not realize that was causing my problem.  Eventually the standard was ratified, and if my memory is correct, the manufacturers released firmware updates so that the devices complied with the ratified standard.

I doubt that this practice will go away since the manufacturers want to release bleeding-edge technology to stay ahead of the competition, but at least their packaging now states "pre-draft" so that cautious consumers will know to avoid it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened with 802.11g .
I remember going through four 802.11g PCI cards before finding one that could communicate with my 802.11g router at a distance of more than three feet .
I was not aware that the devices were pre-draft ( they did n't state " pre-draft " on the packaging like they do now ) , so I did not realize that was causing my problem .
Eventually the standard was ratified , and if my memory is correct , the manufacturers released firmware updates so that the devices complied with the ratified standard .
I doubt that this practice will go away since the manufacturers want to release bleeding-edge technology to stay ahead of the competition , but at least their packaging now states " pre-draft " so that cautious consumers will know to avoid it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened with 802.11g.
I remember going through four 802.11g PCI cards before finding one that could communicate with my 802.11g router at a distance of more than three feet.
I was not aware that the devices were pre-draft (they didn't state "pre-draft" on the packaging like they do now), so I did not realize that was causing my problem.
Eventually the standard was ratified, and if my memory is correct, the manufacturers released firmware updates so that the devices complied with the ratified standard.
I doubt that this practice will go away since the manufacturers want to release bleeding-edge technology to stay ahead of the competition, but at least their packaging now states "pre-draft" so that cautious consumers will know to avoid it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393770</id>
	<title>Unimpressed with 802.11n</title>
	<author>jomcty</author>
	<datestamp>1260437940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I brought a WRT-600n and got worse coverage that with the older WRT-54GS I had been using; totally unimpressed. I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware, very nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I brought a WRT-600n and got worse coverage that with the older WRT-54GS I had been using ; totally unimpressed .
I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware , very nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I brought a WRT-600n and got worse coverage that with the older WRT-54GS I had been using; totally unimpressed.
I now run with an Asus WL-520gu using Tomato firmware, very nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394810</id>
	<title>Re:Blueray of Wifi</title>
	<author>tisch</author>
	<datestamp>1260442020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.</p></div><p>B is quite slow dude. G is fine. The benefits of N are faster transfers between nodes in your network wirelessly. Send/receive files 5-6times faster within your network. Internet access, as always, is only as fast as your ISP allows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BG is good enough , tied to residential/office network , and hard to notice the benefit of N.B is quite slow dude .
G is fine .
The benefits of N are faster transfers between nodes in your network wirelessly .
Send/receive files 5-6times faster within your network .
Internet access , as always , is only as fast as your ISP allows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BG is good enough, tied to residential/office network, and hard to notice the benefit of N.B is quite slow dude.
G is fine.
The benefits of N are faster transfers between nodes in your network wirelessly.
Send/receive files 5-6times faster within your network.
Internet access, as always, is only as fast as your ISP allows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394128</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first time</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1260439500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What customer lock in is there with Wi-fi routers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What customer lock in is there with Wi-fi routers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What customer lock in is there with Wi-fi routers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394268</id>
	<title>Promoting the progress of science and useful arts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260440160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One quote from the article:<blockquote><div><p>Before the IEEE will approve any given standard, everyone with a patent that touches that standard must sign a LoA (Letter of Agreement). The LoA states that the patent holder won't sue anyone using his or her patent in a standard-compatible device. In this case, the holdout was CISRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), an Australian government research group that held a patent that concerned the development of a wirless LAN. CISRO refused to sign the 802.11n-related LOA.</p></div></blockquote><p>
and one from the US Constitution:</p><blockquote><div><p>Congress shall have the right to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;</p></div></blockquote><p>
Try again, Congress.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One quote from the article : Before the IEEE will approve any given standard , everyone with a patent that touches that standard must sign a LoA ( Letter of Agreement ) .
The LoA states that the patent holder wo n't sue anyone using his or her patent in a standard-compatible device .
In this case , the holdout was CISRO ( Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ) , an Australian government research group that held a patent that concerned the development of a wirless LAN .
CISRO refused to sign the 802.11n-related LOA .
and one from the US Constitution : Congress shall have the right to .. To promote the progress of science and useful arts , by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ; Try again , Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One quote from the article:Before the IEEE will approve any given standard, everyone with a patent that touches that standard must sign a LoA (Letter of Agreement).
The LoA states that the patent holder won't sue anyone using his or her patent in a standard-compatible device.
In this case, the holdout was CISRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), an Australian government research group that held a patent that concerned the development of a wirless LAN.
CISRO refused to sign the 802.11n-related LOA.
and one from the US Constitution:Congress shall have the right to .. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Try again, Congress.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398324</id>
	<title>Never should have been DRAFT-N products.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260465420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is unfortunate. For so many years, I've told people not to buy anything that is "Draft" or "Pre"-N because it's not official and might change. So many products still say "Draft" or "Pre" on them that people are still not buying them because there's no official "FINAL RELEASE-N" that they see.</p><p>They may never upgrade to -N. They might just wait for whatever is next.</p><p>No, I don't feel bad for telling them that for years. If the mfgr's want to make Beta products for consumers, fine, but I'm not going to recommend them to clients. It is sad that there is a lack of communication (and back stock) of the Draft-N products that hundreds (that I've told) of people will not buy -N.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is unfortunate .
For so many years , I 've told people not to buy anything that is " Draft " or " Pre " -N because it 's not official and might change .
So many products still say " Draft " or " Pre " on them that people are still not buying them because there 's no official " FINAL RELEASE-N " that they see.They may never upgrade to -N. They might just wait for whatever is next.No , I do n't feel bad for telling them that for years .
If the mfgr 's want to make Beta products for consumers , fine , but I 'm not going to recommend them to clients .
It is sad that there is a lack of communication ( and back stock ) of the Draft-N products that hundreds ( that I 've told ) of people will not buy -N .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is unfortunate.
For so many years, I've told people not to buy anything that is "Draft" or "Pre"-N because it's not official and might change.
So many products still say "Draft" or "Pre" on them that people are still not buying them because there's no official "FINAL RELEASE-N" that they see.They may never upgrade to -N. They might just wait for whatever is next.No, I don't feel bad for telling them that for years.
If the mfgr's want to make Beta products for consumers, fine, but I'm not going to recommend them to clients.
It is sad that there is a lack of communication (and back stock) of the Draft-N products that hundreds (that I've told) of people will not buy -N.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395602</id>
	<title>The tricks: LDPC codes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the tricks is low density parity check codes (LDPCC) which are the best currently known error correcting codes. They're decoded with a wonderfully elegant decoding algorithm which is embarresingly parallel so it works very well in hardware.</p><p>In fact, you can pretty much implement the belief network in hardware directly.</p><p>The codes are also used in 10G Ethernet, too.</p><p>Funny thing is that they date from the 60's, but were impractical because of the amount of computation required to decode them. The decoding algorithm was then rediscovered for inference on Bayes nets.</p><p>If you lick this sort of thing, it is worth reading Mackay's book on inference which is free online. I have no affiliation to Mackay, btw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the tricks is low density parity check codes ( LDPCC ) which are the best currently known error correcting codes .
They 're decoded with a wonderfully elegant decoding algorithm which is embarresingly parallel so it works very well in hardware.In fact , you can pretty much implement the belief network in hardware directly.The codes are also used in 10G Ethernet , too.Funny thing is that they date from the 60 's , but were impractical because of the amount of computation required to decode them .
The decoding algorithm was then rediscovered for inference on Bayes nets.If you lick this sort of thing , it is worth reading Mackay 's book on inference which is free online .
I have no affiliation to Mackay , btw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the tricks is low density parity check codes (LDPCC) which are the best currently known error correcting codes.
They're decoded with a wonderfully elegant decoding algorithm which is embarresingly parallel so it works very well in hardware.In fact, you can pretty much implement the belief network in hardware directly.The codes are also used in 10G Ethernet, too.Funny thing is that they date from the 60's, but were impractical because of the amount of computation required to decode them.
The decoding algorithm was then rediscovered for inference on Bayes nets.If you lick this sort of thing, it is worth reading Mackay's book on inference which is free online.
I have no affiliation to Mackay, btw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394392</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first time</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1260440700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open standards are a good thing. They avoid these kinds of problems.</p></div><p>They do?  I guess so, since, obviously, it's only evil corporations that disagree on things....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open standards are a good thing .
They avoid these kinds of problems.They do ?
I guess so , since , obviously , it 's only evil corporations that disagree on things... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open standards are a good thing.
They avoid these kinds of problems.They do?
I guess so, since, obviously, it's only evil corporations that disagree on things....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398218</id>
	<title>Re:Re:Blueray of Wifi</title>
	<author>tisch</author>
	<datestamp>1260463920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's always a prick on the net somewhere I guess.
<br> <br>
B and G are different standards running at different speeds. When you have a B/G network, it's actually a G network running in compatibility so that older machines with B can connect to the G access point.
<br> <br>
PS, blueray is the new standard for physical distributable media. Better get used to that one too.
<br> <br>
Have a good one, dude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always a prick on the net somewhere I guess .
B and G are different standards running at different speeds .
When you have a B/G network , it 's actually a G network running in compatibility so that older machines with B can connect to the G access point .
PS , blueray is the new standard for physical distributable media .
Better get used to that one too .
Have a good one , dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always a prick on the net somewhere I guess.
B and G are different standards running at different speeds.
When you have a B/G network, it's actually a G network running in compatibility so that older machines with B can connect to the G access point.
PS, blueray is the new standard for physical distributable media.
Better get used to that one too.
Have a good one, dude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394408</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first time</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1260440700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually this problem was caused by the want of Open Standards.<br>1. You can not forbid them from selling none standardized WiFi. The FCC granted unlicensed spectrum for this so each company can do what they want. If not you would really stifle innovation.<br>2. Customers wanted faster wifi and companies supplied it. Hey it said draft on the box. It is called a free market.<br>The Standards committee needs to start working on the next several standards now. The problem is the speed and planning of the standards committee and not the vendors.<br>If one company had managed to patent the only way to get this speed out of wifi and then sold licenses to everybody else then it would have gone much faster but that is a trade off I don't want to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this problem was caused by the want of Open Standards.1 .
You can not forbid them from selling none standardized WiFi .
The FCC granted unlicensed spectrum for this so each company can do what they want .
If not you would really stifle innovation.2 .
Customers wanted faster wifi and companies supplied it .
Hey it said draft on the box .
It is called a free market.The Standards committee needs to start working on the next several standards now .
The problem is the speed and planning of the standards committee and not the vendors.If one company had managed to patent the only way to get this speed out of wifi and then sold licenses to everybody else then it would have gone much faster but that is a trade off I do n't want to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this problem was caused by the want of Open Standards.1.
You can not forbid them from selling none standardized WiFi.
The FCC granted unlicensed spectrum for this so each company can do what they want.
If not you would really stifle innovation.2.
Customers wanted faster wifi and companies supplied it.
Hey it said draft on the box.
It is called a free market.The Standards committee needs to start working on the next several standards now.
The problem is the speed and planning of the standards committee and not the vendors.If one company had managed to patent the only way to get this speed out of wifi and then sold licenses to everybody else then it would have gone much faster but that is a trade off I don't want to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394938</id>
	<title>Re:Promoting the progress of science and useful ar</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260442440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IEEE, "I" = International.</p><p>CISRO = Australian.</p><p>US Constitution = United States.</p><p>Tell me again how Congress failed us when the standard was held up in an international standards body by an agency of the Australian government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IEEE , " I " = International.CISRO = Australian.US Constitution = United States.Tell me again how Congress failed us when the standard was held up in an international standards body by an agency of the Australian government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IEEE, "I" = International.CISRO = Australian.US Constitution = United States.Tell me again how Congress failed us when the standard was held up in an international standards body by an agency of the Australian government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30396328</id>
	<title>SOP</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1260447780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies are after two things:</p><p>1 develop hardware first and then make sure that hardware is supported by the spec so they win the time to market race.</p><p>2 make sure as much IP as possible for whatever standard is approved.  Remember this is not IP as in "protocol" IP but implementation IP.  The idea is to make sure that you have the best way to implement some given algorithm to support the standard.  So for example a decoding algorithm may go into the patent "pool" but the best underlying hardware implementation is what the company wants the IP for.  That way everybody else has to waste time finding away around it.</p><p>Strangely I think it's the combat over 2 that usually undermines 1.</p><p>A proper standard that makes life easy for the rest of us is a casualty of these efforts.  This is why the other posters in this thread are right.  You should wait as long as you can possibly stand to buy hardware. It just supports this behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies are after two things : 1 develop hardware first and then make sure that hardware is supported by the spec so they win the time to market race.2 make sure as much IP as possible for whatever standard is approved .
Remember this is not IP as in " protocol " IP but implementation IP .
The idea is to make sure that you have the best way to implement some given algorithm to support the standard .
So for example a decoding algorithm may go into the patent " pool " but the best underlying hardware implementation is what the company wants the IP for .
That way everybody else has to waste time finding away around it.Strangely I think it 's the combat over 2 that usually undermines 1.A proper standard that makes life easy for the rest of us is a casualty of these efforts .
This is why the other posters in this thread are right .
You should wait as long as you can possibly stand to buy hardware .
It just supports this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies are after two things:1 develop hardware first and then make sure that hardware is supported by the spec so they win the time to market race.2 make sure as much IP as possible for whatever standard is approved.
Remember this is not IP as in "protocol" IP but implementation IP.
The idea is to make sure that you have the best way to implement some given algorithm to support the standard.
So for example a decoding algorithm may go into the patent "pool" but the best underlying hardware implementation is what the company wants the IP for.
That way everybody else has to waste time finding away around it.Strangely I think it's the combat over 2 that usually undermines 1.A proper standard that makes life easy for the rest of us is a casualty of these efforts.
This is why the other posters in this thread are right.
You should wait as long as you can possibly stand to buy hardware.
It just supports this behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30399822</id>
	<title>Re:Drama...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260532320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HBO doesn't have commercials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HBO does n't have commercials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HBO doesn't have commercials.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398762</id>
	<title>Who's CISRO?</title>
	<author>NoMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1260472200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite expanding the acronym once, and linking to the organisation, the article manages to spell it incorrectly 3 times out of 4.</p><p>It's C<b>SI</b>RO, you numbnuts!</p><p>Also, IIRC, the CSIRO patents referred to pre-date any work on 802.11n, and their reluctance to release the patents for use by the WiFi consortium was due to the fact that they were still involved in outstanding suits and countersuits with IBM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Netgear, Buffalo, etc. When all that was cleared up / dropped, CSIRO agreed to sign off on the LoA.</p><p>Short timeline <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39289756,00.htm" title="zdnet.co.uk">here</a> [zdnet.co.uk], at the bottom of the page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite expanding the acronym once , and linking to the organisation , the article manages to spell it incorrectly 3 times out of 4.It 's CSIRO , you numbnuts ! Also , IIRC , the CSIRO patents referred to pre-date any work on 802.11n , and their reluctance to release the patents for use by the WiFi consortium was due to the fact that they were still involved in outstanding suits and countersuits with IBM , Dell , HP , Microsoft , Netgear , Buffalo , etc .
When all that was cleared up / dropped , CSIRO agreed to sign off on the LoA.Short timeline here [ zdnet.co.uk ] , at the bottom of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite expanding the acronym once, and linking to the organisation, the article manages to spell it incorrectly 3 times out of 4.It's CSIRO, you numbnuts!Also, IIRC, the CSIRO patents referred to pre-date any work on 802.11n, and their reluctance to release the patents for use by the WiFi consortium was due to the fact that they were still involved in outstanding suits and countersuits with IBM, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Netgear, Buffalo, etc.
When all that was cleared up / dropped, CSIRO agreed to sign off on the LoA.Short timeline here [zdnet.co.uk], at the bottom of the page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394794</id>
	<title>CISRO? CSIRO? WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260441960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the hell can someone misspell CSIRO, then get it right 1 sentence later, then get it WRONG AGAIN in the very next paragraph?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell can someone misspell CSIRO , then get it right 1 sentence later , then get it WRONG AGAIN in the very next paragraph ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell can someone misspell CSIRO, then get it right 1 sentence later, then get it WRONG AGAIN in the very next paragraph?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30399282</id>
	<title>G/N is worthless if encryption gives no throughput</title>
	<author>untold</author>
	<datestamp>1260523980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares about wireless N or even G for that matter? When one uses any decent level of encryption you get 1/10th the throughput advertised. Seems pointless to me. Once I can get 50Mbit/s with a decent level of encryption then I'll bother spending money to upgrade. Yes, there are ways around this with ssh tunnels and such but that's silly, IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about wireless N or even G for that matter ?
When one uses any decent level of encryption you get 1/10th the throughput advertised .
Seems pointless to me .
Once I can get 50Mbit/s with a decent level of encryption then I 'll bother spending money to upgrade .
Yes , there are ways around this with ssh tunnels and such but that 's silly , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about wireless N or even G for that matter?
When one uses any decent level of encryption you get 1/10th the throughput advertised.
Seems pointless to me.
Once I can get 50Mbit/s with a decent level of encryption then I'll bother spending money to upgrade.
Yes, there are ways around this with ssh tunnels and such but that's silly, IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395866</id>
	<title>Re:Wi-fail</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1260445920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your microwave knocks you offline throw it out! No correctly functioning device should be emitting outside the cooking area. When I supported Cisco's wireless division we bought every microwave available for sale in our area and every microwave from every Goodwill in the area and could never measure any significant amount of emissions. Also 802.11n supports operating in the 5Ghz spectrum so if you don't have concrete walls you can generally avoid collisions with neighbors as there is much less gear using that space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your microwave knocks you offline throw it out !
No correctly functioning device should be emitting outside the cooking area .
When I supported Cisco 's wireless division we bought every microwave available for sale in our area and every microwave from every Goodwill in the area and could never measure any significant amount of emissions .
Also 802.11n supports operating in the 5Ghz spectrum so if you do n't have concrete walls you can generally avoid collisions with neighbors as there is much less gear using that space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your microwave knocks you offline throw it out!
No correctly functioning device should be emitting outside the cooking area.
When I supported Cisco's wireless division we bought every microwave available for sale in our area and every microwave from every Goodwill in the area and could never measure any significant amount of emissions.
Also 802.11n supports operating in the 5Ghz spectrum so if you don't have concrete walls you can generally avoid collisions with neighbors as there is much less gear using that space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808</id>
	<title>Drama...?</title>
	<author>ScoLgo</author>
	<datestamp>1260438060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love this line; "The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition"</p><p>Yep, this has definitely kept me on the edge of my seat waaayyyy more than watching Lost or Heroes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love this line ; " The result : it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition " Yep , this has definitely kept me on the edge of my seat waaayyyy more than watching Lost or Heroes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love this line; "The result: it took five drama-packed years for the standard to come to fruition"Yep, this has definitely kept me on the edge of my seat waaayyyy more than watching Lost or Heroes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30399822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30396576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2012233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30398160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30395866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30393808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30399822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30396576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30399282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2012233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2012233.30394938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
