On 4/7/2018 6:09 AM, Lee H Badman wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Lee Badman | Network Architect | CWNE #200
> Information Technology Services
> 206 Machinery Hall
> 120 Smith Drive
> Syracuse, New York 13244
> t 315.443.3003 f 315.443.4325 e lhbad...@syr.edu w its.syr.edu
> SYRACUSE
On 4/6/2018 12:52 PM, Lee H Badman wrote:
> Interesting- I couldn’t tell if rules were different between EU
> residents vs visitors. I’m sure a lot of campus legal
> departments/lawyers are busy right now trying to figure it all out.
> I’ll be curious to see how operations for US colleges abroad
I recently had a staff member ask for a report or document stating how
dangerous wireless is to their health. Has anyone else been asked this
before and can you direct me or send me the info that you provided to
that person or department?
Thanks for any help or info on this subject.
*
Penning a quick note of thanks publicly, to Michael Tennefoss from Aruba
Networks, who brought to my attention - the existence of the Norwegian
Institute of Public Health's study on low level RF health risks.
Instead of providing the report here, I shall provide the relevant
URLs. They are:
On 8/1/2012 11:47 AM, Peter P Morrissey wrote:
I think it is a good question. One could argue that the more who sign
it, the better. I'm not sure though that this issue would be
applicable to an ISP. The petition emanated from the frustrations of
those directly involved in grappling with
On 8/1/2012 11:55 AM, Lee H Badman wrote:
Dr. Mathews,
My own take is that anyone in IT that is feeling the pain will
immediately recognize what our group is trying to accomplish and is
welcome to add their comments and signature.
*Good afternoon, Lee:*
Thank you, for your note.
On 8/1/2012 2:06 PM, Lee H Badman wrote:
Well then... spread the word, brother! We're live until August 10^th
for signatures.
-Lee
*Hi, Lee:* :-)
hehehehehe
Well, I am not sure, just what I am able to do, or should do...! :-)
I was merely putting some suggestions forward...
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
Robert:
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking in this first question, but
let me say that not many wireless clients (that would be network stack
specific, I believe) have implemented DNAv4. That Cisco didn't catch
this bug during their testing process is
