-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/24/08 11:35, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:02:25PM -0400, Celejar wrote: >> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:33 -0500 >> "Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You may believe so, but not everyone agrees. IANAL, but the >> above referenced Madwifi page justifies the need for the binary, >> closed source HAL by claiming that: >> >> <Quote> >> >> At least the USA Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that >> any manufactured products have a mechanism for limiting transmission >> power and frequencies, and that these mechanisms are not easily >> modifiable by the consumer. >> >> </Quote> > > Why didn't they do it in hardware? Why have the hardware be > software-configurable to go outside of the design spec then limit the > access to the software?
Flexibility. If the regulations change, a firmware update gives your product more features. And cost. It's cheaper to manufacture a lot of one thing, than some of this, some of that, and some of something else. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA ESPN makes baseball players better. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIOEgJS9HxQb37XmcRAvLVAJ9qfgiAnPbmYwSypzC44ygWAgaa/wCeONED BI4/NumYkirMgLWCC/U673k= =WN5a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
