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? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]