Some IT guy, IDK.
Depends on the type of fiber and all that. It can be insanely complex.
But this is possible, yes.
You are the subset of people who happen to be in a situation where they're working as they should. I'm going to guess that you're not in North America, and live somewhere with 240v power outlets.
In any country that uses 120v, usually it's split phase power, and if your powerline adapters are sharing a phase with something that's inductive or crossing the split in the phase, generally they're going to be rubbish. So you basically need a degree in electrical engineering to figure out what circuits are on what side of the split phase, and what is on each circuit that may be an inductive load, and could interfere, just for them to perform like they should.
There's a whole lot more to it, and I'm simplifying a lot here, but that's the overview of the problem.
With UK power circuits, there are fewer breakers and everything is fed from a single phase of 240v. That makes it much more likely that you'll have a good experience with powerline. Just have to avoid the circuit with stuff like your air conditioner (if you have one) and stuff like the fridge, and generally you do quite well with powerline.
Ethernet is still better tho. Heh.
This is the information I couldn't really squeeze in without side tracking my entire point.
There are "good" extenders, that use different channels/radios, but the cheap ones people buy are not those.
Wi-Fi is convenient more than anything. You just have to know the right passphrase and as long as you are in range, you can get in.... In most cases.
When it comes to WiFi, I'm a fan of many smaller and lower power access points vs a few high powered ones. This is rarely the case in residential situations though. Most people buy a single, high powered Wi-Fi in the form of a all-in-one wireless router, and call it a day, then almost exclusively use Wi-Fi and wonder why it sucks, then go buy a newer more powerful unit once one is available.
My motto is: wire when you can, wireless when you have to. Devices like laptops, tablets and phones, usually do not have Ethernet built in, or are too mobile to make it practical to use. Meanwhile anything that doesn't move, like TVs, desktops, etc, need a wire run once, and it will work perfectly until the building falls over.
That's a lot of return on the investment of running the cable once.
I usually prefer all home runs (everything going back to a central point) but networking is diverse, so using a cable to get to an area, then using a switch to serve that area is entirely valid. Just don't Daisy chain too many switches or your going to have a bad time. Whether that link is copper, fiber, MoCA/coax, doesn't matter... As long as it's reliable and fast.
In any case, I have at least 8 access points serving my home, and they need to be moved, since I still have one spot that's a dead zone.
This is the way.
Alien can be boiled down to simply meaning "foreign". As in, not coming from the wire bundle that is used for the connection.
Crosstalk is the term usually used for interference coming from other pairs in the same bundle, which should be minimal due to the electrical/magnetic properties associated with twisted pair.
Alien interference is any inference from an outside source, usually by inducing a current on the Ethernet pairs, that shouldn't be present. Usually this results in corruption of the data in transit or a failure to sync (and establish a connection at all).
No extra terrestrial interference was meant to be implied; though, I'm not excluding the extra terrestrials from creating interference; I'm sure if such beings exist and are here, they could interfere, but that wasn't the intention of my statement.
Alien inference is a very common term in wireline networking. I'm surprised you haven't heard it.
You're quick.
Thanks for the assist. This is what I'm referring to.
As a network guy: Ethernet over power lines can be fine, but you basically need to be an electrician, and have a working knowledge of how powerline Ethernet works before you can get there.
Even if you do, or stumble into a working setup by accident, you can absolutely end up with all kinds of bad things happening because power lines are notoriously bad with crosstalk and EMI, both on the wire and emitted from it.
If you absolutely cannot do rj45/Ethernet runs, and WiFi isn't viable for whatever reason (or even if it is), look into MoCA. Thank me later.
It won't cost you any more than powerline, and you'll get a cleaner signal, more consistent performance, and overall a better experience.
In order of preference, I prefer the following connection options:
- fiber
- Ethernet
- MoCA
- Wi-Fi
- powerline
Fiber, not because it's faster or better (there are many ways it's actually worse than Ethernet), but because it's almost impossible to interfere with, unless someone physically disconnects the cable (or breaks/cuts it). As long as the line is protected from damage, it will give the most consistent performance.
Ethernet, more robust than fiber in terms of physical disability, can be faster at propagating data (the time it takes to get from one end of the cable to the other), but only works over relatively short runs (100m or less, by spec), and it's susceptible to alien interference and crosstalk. However, it is far more rugged than fiber.
MoCA is half duplex but shares a lot of the benefits of Ethernet. The main improvement here is that coax is commonly present in most homes already, while Ethernet is relatively uncommon in homes, so many homes are already wired in a way that works with MoCA.
Wi-Fi is also half duplex, it can go faster than Ethernet under the right conditions (which are almost impossible to achieve in real world conditions). Propagation is as fast as Ethernet but it has more overhead, and it is much more prone to interference from other Wi-Fi networks or other things operating on the same, unlicensed, bands.
Powerline should only be considered if all of the other options are disqualified for some reason.
Also, anyone using wifi extenders (not talking about mesh or anything, just actual Wi-Fi extenders), should probably not be doing that. Wi-Fi extenders are often just retransmitting the packets on the same wifi channel, which dramatically cuts the available bandwidth. You'll end up with a stronger connection, but a much slower one.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
I'm pretty certain you're correct.
I've been loosely following along (I am not an American), and I did not realize the consequences myself. Holy shit, he's basically halting paycheques for a lot of the people working directly and indirectly for the government.
I feel bad for those people. Hopefully they have enough to weather this storm until Taco gets advised that this action is fucking stupid as all hell.
Well, money is only as valuable as we think it is, and what goods or services it can be traded for.
The money itself carries very little value itself, only what we assign to it, or associate to it.
If the economic system based on the currency currently in use collapses, the money you have won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
It keeps working because the insurance/bank systems are evaluating things on the merit of the lender and their business plan. Anyone can make a decent business plan that will pass muster if you fiddle with it long enough. And the individual company/organisation that is defaulting on these are a dime-a-dozen. Since the failure of the loan goes down with the ship (and company), even if the borrower's ask for more money tomorrow, as long as the request is coming from a different company/organization, the banks evaluate based on the organisation that is requesting the loan, not the leadership's failed previous attempts from other businesses.
Incorporated companies have limited liability from their owners. While the owners operate as agents of the business, ultimately the business itself is liable for their decisions. They don't bear any responsibility. So their actions are based on what will get them, personally, the most value extracted from the business, not based on what's good for the long-term success of the company itself.
The banks, and/or the insurance companies.
In the case of the banks, the money isn't real and never existed in the first place.
The fiat money system is pretty fucked when you understand it.
At worst they take the "loss" and at best, they get bailed out by public dollars.
Pick whatever fits your ideals.
People are saying this?
Are they idiots?
I'm just saying that you can uninstall stuff from your smart phone.
Use it for phone stuff, not computer stuff.
But hey, don't let me tell you what to do. Have fun.
The sad part is that these numbers are made up and Disney probably won't really be affected by this.
Unless a majority of D+ unsubscribes, stay unsubscribed, this will be little more than a blip on their financials.
I hope he shuts down the government, honestly.... It might limit how much damage he does.
I generally feel like leveraged buyouts for numbers into the billions are just inside jobs for those selling.
Stay with me for a sec.
So the seller makes a closed door deal with the "buyer" to funnel money back to them personally after the sale is done. So in this case, say, they commit 3.6bn to the "buyers" and pocket 3bn for themselves. Almost the entire purchase is leveraged, with the expectation that it will become unsustainable and go bankrupt shortly after the purchase.
The buyers don't really give a shit, they'll write it off, collect whatever they can from insurance, etc. They didn't really want to company anyways, so they let it fold.
The money they took home from the deal with the seller is entirely theirs, the company bears the weight of the debt and the consequences of defaulting on the debt, so the execs that made the move are basically free and clear.
Everyone wins, except, you know, the poors who work at the purchased company, the banks, who don't give a shit, and insurance people, which... Nobody gives a fuck about them...
At the end of the day, the execs of the purchasing company get rich, the sellers get rich, and that's the fucking point.
If the sellers instead just closed up shop, they would get maybe a fraction of the money they would from selling it, mainly in selling off assets... It would be a pittance compared to this scheme.
All they need to do is find someone they can buy out the morals of, to complete the deal. This is surprisingly easy in the corpo world.
Oh, I'm still under the thumb of a mortgage... For now.
I'm working on it, but hopefully by retirement I'll be able to say I outright own my home.
Sorry about the confusion. In my haste to make a point I've probably said some things less clearly than I should.
My main motivator for thinking that there's less home ownership in cities than in less urban areas, is because of density. Between basement rentals and full single-family dwellings being converted to multi family rentals, plus the inclusion of purpose built high-rise apartment buildings, you end up with a lot of families ending up in rental property. Yes, there's still a lot of homes that are owned, whether a single family house or a condo or something else, there's a lot of it, but bluntly, you can't Cram as many people into a single family home compared to how many get crammed into rental properties.
Most rental homes I know of are 2-3 families of 2 or more, so at least 4 people. While plenty of home owners are a married couple and Maybe a kid or two. At best they're on par, at worst there's 3 or 4 times as many people per house.
Home owners are simply existing in lower densities.
If I walk down a street in a medium sized town and ask the people on a street if they own or rent, it might come out as 50/50 for how many houses are bought or rented. Given that rentals tend to have higher occupancy, you end up with more families renting than owning, and that's before you account for apartments and condos.
From my experience apartment buildings are far more common than condos, and generally have smaller units in larger buildings, so there's simply more people per sq ft, and all of those are renting.
I don't have hard numbers on any of this, it's entirely my opinion based on anecdotal evidence at best, but I would estimate that there's a nontrivial difference in numbers between who might be renting and who is buying/owning.
I definitely could be wrong.
Then you agree with me.
Almost the entirety of the contents of that post were arguments that my interviewer was asserting. I disagreed with him.
I have noticed that a lot more is going to a monthly recurring model, rather than buying something outright.
We used to buy DVDs, we now Subscribe monthly to streaming services. As an example, and hardly the only one.
Bluntly, I don't think people will accept this shift in ownership for much longer. I know many people who outright reject the notion that everything needs to be paid monthly.
It's part of the reason why I moved to where I live now, so I can actually own my home. Not just indefinitely rent it from someone else. I strongly believe in ownership and the rights an owner should have over their property.... As long as that property isn't a living person, which would be a very different discussion. I digress.
I hate that I'm seeing this trend. But I'm seeing it, and I know it's a problem for basically everyone who isn't one of the owners of the things people are buying/renting/getting "as a service".
As a system admin.... Same.