OnLive Founder Claims "Impossible" Wireless Breakthrough

[ZephrC]

Someone needs to learn the scientific definition of theory, as you'll find it isn't how we use it in regular conversation, a theory is made up of facts and laws and will never become a fact and law because it is already considered higher than them.

That is so wrong you just gave me a headache. Laws are simply the fundamental assumptions we make about how the universe works because without those assumptions we simply wouldn't ever make any progress For a theory to overturn a law it has to be a damn good theory, and even then it's only likely to slightly alter a law.

Facts, however, absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt have the highest priority in science. If the facts don't support your theory, the theory is wrong. End of discussion.

Theory is a term that covers a lot of ground. It's not to hard for something to become a theory. We accept conflicting theories all the time. It's the most the majority of ideas will ever be though, because there's really nowhere for them to go from there. So saying something is a theory by itself simply has very little bearing on how certain it is. You have to understand the theory in question and pretty much everything else related to it as well to really make reliable statements on how likely it is to be true.

 

[oktalist]

Someone needs to learn the scientific definition of theory, as you'll find it isn't how we use it in regular conversation, a theory is made up of facts and laws and will never become a fact and law because it is already considered higher than them.

That is so wrong you just gave me a headache. Laws are simply the fundamental assumptions we make about how the universe works because without those assumptions we simply wouldn't ever make any progress For a theory to overturn a law it has to be a damn good theory, and even then it's only likely to slightly alter a law.

Facts, however, absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt have the highest priority in science. If the facts don't support your theory, the theory is wrong. End of discussion.

Theory is a term that covers a lot of ground. It's not to hard for something to become a theory. We accept conflicting theories all the time. It's the most the majority of ideas will ever be though, because there's really nowhere for them to go from there. So saying something is a theory by itself simply has very little bearing on how certain it is. You have to understand the theory in question and pretty much everything else related to it as well to really make reliable statements on how likely it is to be true.

The terms "theory" and "law" are pretty much interchangeable. It's mostly a question of style whether you call your idea a theory or a law or a principle or whatever. It bears no relation to how likely it is to be "true".

And there is no such thing as facts, only observations.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

refuse to get a cell phone...?

where do you live and why do you refuse to get a cell phone...

hell 80% of the people i know don't have home phones anymore because they only have a cell..

I refuse to get a cell phone, too. Stupid things, absolute scam. Cell phones are pretty expensive for what you get, have absolutely horrid workmanship in them (fall apart criminally fast) and the companies pull jank that no legitimate phone service provider ever would.

while i will say they are more expensive than your average landline at home, i have to disagree with your other statements


phone/cable companies try all the time to get you to bundle unnecessary shit together into getting you shit that you don't need, at all, it happens all the damn time and they constantly advertise for lower deals than they actually will give you in the long run.

and you must have the worst phone company on the planet or the way you treat shit is awful because phones do not fall apart, No one in my family has yet to break a single phone, and we have gone through probably a total of 16 cell phones over the years.

 

[YunikoYokai5]

It sounds cool. However, I still refuse to get a cell phone.

refuse to get a cell phone...?

where do you live and why do you refuse to get a cell phone...

hell 80% of the people i know don't have home phones anymore because they only have a cell..

Where I live has nothing to do with why I refuse to get a cell phone. I don't have or want one because I refuse to interact with people whenever it happens to enter their tiny brains that they know my number. So why should I have an expensive device to carry around when I'd never voluntarily answer it? If I'm going somewhere and I feel the need for portable entertainment, I bring a book. I'm capable of keeping track of my appointments myself. I have no children that require supervision.

If I actually needed to be in touch with people on short notice, I'd probably get a cell phone. But I don't. So I won't.

So you don't carry one in case of emergencies? Like if you break down or if your family/friends need to get in contact with you ASAP because something has happened? You get get some phones really cheaply. I had a phone that only cost me £15 for 3 years before it decided to pack in XD Even now, I carry a phone just in case I need to be contacted/something happens (also only need to get a £10 top-up every 5-6 months)

OP. Hmm, interesting. Would help raise my pathetic 52kb per second internet speed >.> Alas, I'm in the crowd that needs to see it in action, but not because I think its impossible, it just seems too damn impressive XD

 

[Loboludo]

I would like to make this very clear to anybody reading this article.
No law or theory of physics was broken! If someone finds one he may correct me but this "Shannon-Hartley theorem" is a theorem from information theory.
The article should say that a theorem of information theory was maybe broken but I guess this doesn't sound as exciting.
Having read parts of the patent I wouldn't even say that. As far as I understood it the communication takes place between two devices with 3 antennas each. These antennas have a distance of at least half the wavelength of the signal or as an optimum a sixth of the wavelength on said devices. Therefor the Shannon-Hartley theorem isn't broken because we are not talking of one channel but of nine and due to the small distance between the antennas on each device the noise can be filtered out because it is different for each antenna except for the noise which is assumed to be constant for each.
As for the same bandwidth for anyone. It says in the patent that the bandwidth per client is limited by the number of antennas (paragraph [0142]). Not the bandwidth itself is limited by the number of users but the amount of time each client has the whole bandwidth for himself.
Through clever distribution (streaming gets more time, email less) each client can enjoy the hole bandwidth.

Also the velocity of light "c" has nothing to do with bandwidth. It only limits the response time but NOT the amount of information which travels from point a to point b.

 

[scienceguy8]

If this isn't bs this is more proof that Physics/Math need to take a lesson from Chemistry & Biology.

Physics observes an action/force and before they even know what causes the action they have a new law.

Bio still claims the idea of living tissue utilizing dna & cells as theory instead of law.

Chemistry's entire basis, that atoms exist is still "theory."

The problem here is that the term law is so loosely bandied about by physicists that real science is either discouraged (because it must be impossible the law says so) or has to constantly redefine "laws."

Not this malarky again.

THEORY. DOES. NOT. MEAN. UNPROVEN!

In scientific terminology, a theory is a collection of proofs and laws that, when taken together, explain a process or phenomenon. The theory of evolution, for instance, is made up of multiple proofs and laws such as the fact that lesser organisms are the first to die and organisms with some sort of edge are the last and that DNA can change from generation to generation due to breeding, environmental exposure, and errors caused by biological processes.*

*The preceding statement using evolution as an example should be taken with a grain of salt. The person explaining this is an electrical engineer, not a biologist, and thus the example may be horribly mangled. The overall point, however, stands. Theory does not necessarily mean unproven.

 

[Pinkamena]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Bloodstain]

This is exactly how The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect started.

Yay cyberspace!

 

[LJJ1991]

Big technological advancement process of 2011: Unlimited Bandwidth. Big technological advancement process of 2012: Faster than Light travel. Big technological advancement advancement process of 2014: Mass Relays.

 

[draythefingerless]

yes i was surprised by OnLive too, until i found out you need really good internet and living in a good USA city to have a good reception. OnLive right now is the equivalent of high class restaurants. Sure, theyre good and worth it, but only if you live in the big city where they are. Otherwise, taking a hundred mile trip just to eat filet mignon at 100 dollars isnt worth it. and neither is OnLive.

I live in the UAE, my internet is utter shit and I'm lucky to get about 300-400 kbs download speed. I run onlive demos flawlessly.

Your point is moot.

and i live in Europe, with over 1mb internet, and it fucking sucks and lags. YOUR point is moot too.

 

[draythefingerless]

I would like to make this very clear to anybody reading this article.
No law or theory of physics was broken! If someone finds one he may correct me but this "Shannon-Hartley theorem" is a theorem from information theory.
The article should say that a theorem of information theory was maybe broken but I guess this doesn't sound as exciting.
Having read parts of the patent I wouldn't even say that. As far as I understood it the communication takes place between two devices with 3 antennas each. These antennas have a distance of at least half the wavelength of the signal or as an optimum a sixth of the wavelength on said devices. Therefor the Shannon-Hartley theorem isn't broken because we are not talking of one channel but of nine and due to the small distance between the antennas on each device the noise can be filtered out because it is different for each antenna except for the noise which is assumed to be constant for each.
As for the same bandwidth for anyone. It says in the patent that the bandwidth per client is limited by the number of antennas (paragraph [0142]). Not the bandwidth itself is limited by the number of users but the amount of time each client has the whole bandwidth for himself.
Through clever distribution (streaming gets more time, email less) each client can enjoy the hole bandwidth.

Also the velocity of light "c" has nothing to do with bandwidth. It only limits the response time but NOT the amount of information which travels from point a to point b.

Ah yes, this was my initial thoughts. more than likely they are optimizing antenna sizes and increasing their numbers. problem is, thats probably really expensive to make right now.

 

[blindthrall]

I noticed the name 'Rearden'. Rearden Mobile provides superior signals, at cheaper prices than it's competitors. Mobile Video Sites like Taggart Streaming will enjoy it.

That was exactly the point where I decided that not to believe any of this. OnLive was considered implausible and difficult, not physically impossible.

 

[blindthrall]

Man, where was the all powerful buggy whip and railroad conglomerates when the car came along? CAuse, apparently, bloated companies can completely crush all technological innovation, which is why I'm still using a radio and wearing spats!

Because the automobile is an obvious impossibility! At speeds over 40 mph, your lungs simply are not capable of drawing oxygen from the gales rushing about your head! And some people have talked about using glass to solve this problem. So I can get a facefull of glass the first time a weevil hits this devilish contraption? Poppycock! Next they'll try telling me my oriental concubine is capable of an orgasm!

 

[Vohn_exel]

Haven't they seen that terrible horror movie where all the dead come back through wifi? Pulse, I think it was? Or heck, haven't they seen Serial Experiements Lain? But seriously speaking, I don't believe in true limits. I believe that eventually, given enough time and money, people can find a way around what they thought impossible once.

 

[G96 Saber]

And because of this fabulous breakthrough, chances of the worlds economy crashing so badly the world as we know it ends has gone up 15%. But its all good chaps!

 

[Fursnake]

I'm all for this supposed new technology as long as it is not tied to OnLive/Cloud computing at all. Got no use for Cloud computing, I don't want to stream games at all, nor do I want any of my computer info kept on someone else's server.

 

[Littlee300]

He's probably telling the truth. Financially there is no benefit to lying in this manner, he runs a business, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to make money you say you have MORE restrictions not less.

That's how you trick folks.

This.

All we can do know if hope cell phone and service providers don't try to stop it.

Couldn't he get make his company's stocks a lot from this lie then sell his and move to Europe?

You can never be sure

 

[Chibz]

phone/cable companies try all the time to get you to bundle unnecessary shit together into getting you shit that you don't need

I meant stuff like charging you for receiving calls. I refuse to ever pay my provider for a received call, that shit just doesn't fly with a legitimate provider.