From: Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:07:38 +
This being a Wireless connection, it's more likely to be signal
strength.
My original thought also.
... no attenuation = 100% ...
I don't understand. Any received signal which is too weak to
saturate the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 07:43:56AM -0800, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
From: Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:07:38 +
This being a Wireless connection, it's more likely to be signal
strength.
My original thought also.
... no attenuation = 100% ...
I
Darac others,
From: Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:14:59 +
I was rather meaning how much the signal is attenuated between the
sender and receiver.
My hypothesis. ...
For the receiver to know the attenuation from the tranmitter, the
header of each
Network Nanager gives a que such as Wireless network
connection 'ubcsecure' active: ubcsecure (66%).
No mention of the percentage in
http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkManager#Documentation ,
http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/users/
or https://live.gnome.org/NetworkManager .
I'll guess it is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/01/2013 17:42, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
Network Nanager gives a que such as Wireless network connection
'ubcsecure' active: ubcsecure (66%).
No mention of the percentage in
http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkManager#Documentation ,
5 matches
Mail list logo