From: Warren Oates on
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2007/01/5_ghz_or_bust.html
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
From: Aaron Leonard on
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:37:29 -0500, Warren Oates <warren.oates(a)gmail.com> wrote:

~ http://wifinetnews.com/archives/2007/01/5_ghz_or_bust.html

Ultimately the question is, or will be: how do you achieve the requisite
bits per second per cubic meter, for your applications running in your
coverage area?

If 2.4GHz meets your needs ... then, given that it carries further
and is cheaper, why not go for it.

BUT if you have serious bps/m^2 needs, then 72MHz (or whatever) of
bandwidth in the 2.4 band can't compete with 330MHz (or whatever)
in the 5GHz band.

The greater attenuation at higher frequencies is a nonissue for
your high bps/m^2 users, who will want to space their radios at
20' or 20m intervals. In fact it's a plus for 5GHz as it reduces
the impact of interference from the peanut gallery.

~ Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
~ -- Fannie Farmer

I dig this quote, so I googled on it, and got 30,000 hits, all
of which appear to be your sig. Man you post a lot! (Loved you
in Alfredo Garcia btw.)
From: Warren Oates on
In article <4fm3m5dcogs3h7rt17nef2shm18o6mv6pn(a)4ax.com>,
Aaron Leonard <Aaron(a)Cisco.COM> wrote:

> I dig this quote, so I googled on it, and got 30,000 hits, all
> of which appear to be your sig. Man you post a lot! (Loved you
> in Alfredo Garcia btw.)

Hmm. This came from the 1965 edition of the cookbook.

The closest I found on the 'net was the 1918:
http://www.bartleby.com/87/r0758.html

I don't really post that much -- a lot of newsgroups get archived in a
lot of places though. I'm nowhere near the a big poster in any of the
newsgroups I follow, which are only about 6.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer