guzziguy

You have it correct. The idea is to allow the new guy to use the wireless network to access the internet, but to wall off his computers and their traffic from the new guy. It's not that he doesn't trust the new roommate. He has to do it for fiduciary reasons. Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I've encouraged him to explore the guest network option.

Congratulations Jim, the BA looks great. I just have one question. Have you figured out yet how you are getting it on the airplane? Carry on?

Will this stop somebody from sniffing the network? Of course, if the guy is truly a hacker, nothing will. )

A friend of mine just called me with an interesting wireless network problem he is about to have and asked for possible solutions. Currently, he's running a wireless Applenet network at home with an Airport Express as his wireless router, which connects to the cable modem. He runs WPA and he is the only user so his network is pretty much secure. He has several computers on the network which talk together plus he often goes out to the internet. The problem is that he's about to get a roommate who also wants to get out to the internet. This is OK, but he needs to be able to hide his computers and traffic from the new user. Simple enough, eh? Normally I would solve this by having two subnets in the house and put his computers on one subnet and the roommate's on another and set the protections appropriately. However, I have no idea if the Apple Express or other home routers support having multiple subnets. Could somebody with more Apple (almost everybody) and more home networking experience please suggest a solution to this problem. TIA for your suggestions. I wonder it it will come down to having two internet connections and two separate wireless routers using different frequencies.

That's because Dan always has to have the last word!

I doubt that they know you at any of the banks in and around Wilmington.

I hate to point out the obvious, but we are almost all beaver fans here.

Nothing, it's not meal time. BTW, I meant nothing derogatory until the last post. Rachel Ray has talent and can cook. I have no idea why you decided to attack me. Also, I don't think I'm projecting at all. Almost all of your post are "Look at me" posts.

It's better than needing attention.

Don't forget "sammy" and "delish". Maybe you two grew up together?

By his cooking vocabulary, I think he must have dated Rachel Ray.

Erich Kunzel - "Yeah, that Jacob guy played for me a couple of times. He was strange."

Yes, but how is the reception? Does it get ESPN?

What are those two first things?

But it looks so, so naked.

Kids? What kids? Dinny was mad because he had to drink Veuve instead of Krug.

Duggeh's preparing for his starring role in the next Mummy movie.

I suggest that you send it back. If not, you'll always suspect that it is not 100%. The issue was created by HeadRoom and I'm sure that they'll do what it takes to resolve it to your satisfaction.

You've got it Steve. To me, "analytical" is an adjective that means somewhat bad sound when talking about audio. If it's worse, it goes from "analytical" to "etched". "Neutral" just means it doesn't have obvious colorations. One of the best head amps I've heard is Ti's (amb) demo B22. It's also one of the prettiest, which makes it sound even better. It's obvious that Antonio and I are saying the same thing. We are just using different words.

Read about it here. It was pretty outlandish, but gave an interesting new twist on soaps. It sounds like True Blood is trying the same twist. The problem is that it's no longer new.

So is it basically an updated version of Dark Shadows?

Now we know where RSA and Rudistor got the versions included in their manuals.

You could even ask steveio if he'll give you an HC price of $2k. I find the B22s to which I've listened to be "neutral" and not analytical. I'd happily own one and I'm a tube guy.