OnLive Founder Claims "Impossible" Wireless Breakthrough

[SenseOfTumour]

Yet there's still ISPs in the UK offering 20mb broadband with a 40gb monthly download limit.

Others have 2-8mb packages with a TWO GB monthly limit.

That's about 3 hours of BBC iplayer in a month.

One day someone's going to find a way to sell us air in limited quantities.

Unless we find a way to educate the public, this will come into play, and yet the ISP and telecoms companies will carry on limiting us and charging us silly money.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I don't know about the particulars of this specific 'law' or what he is claiming, but is it just me or does this sound like an advertisement?

"This person has made technology that is sooo powerful that it destroys a law of physics!"

 

[zehydra]

", the proposed DIDO base stations would be about the size of a wireless router and have an effective broadcast range of 30 miles, through solid objects that would otherwise block cellular signals"

Perlman also forgot to mention that his new technology is transmitting information via "Death Ray".

 

[PureChaos]

thats an amazing breakthrough, think of the possibilities? though i guarantee the most common use for it will be gaming

 

[znix]

I'm looking forward to the coming days and whether we will see any real proof of this.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

I'm all for pushing the boundaries, but he's going to have to work pretty hard to defy science.

I hope it works!

PS: Anybody else love the fact that the acronym is DIDO?

 

[bpm195]

Interesting to concept if I understand it correctly, but if I do understand it correctly he really could have stated it much clearer.

 

[Torrasque]

The science makes sense, and a friend of mine whom I trust says that (what he's figured out so far) the math makes sense too, although even he is flabbergasted.
If this actually becomes a reality in my lifetime, color me ecstatic.

 

[Torrasque]

If this ACTUALLY is true and works...

Then I DEMAND that any attempts to institute Usage Based Billing in Canada be LAUGHED out of court. with the throwing of tomatoes.

Here here! *rabble rabble rabble*

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

Usually my mum is really behind on technology but she's been a DIDO fan for years. I wonder how she knew about this?

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

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."

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.

also:

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.

Where in that statement do I lessen the value of the term theory? I even only cited non-controversial theories which have been fairly thoroughly proven as my basis for this, in order to avoid this type of confusion. I understand that theories are not some trivial thing. My entire point was that I am tired of being in physics class &/or reading articles that state that some new research is attempting to violate natural "laws" because something was attributed the title of law too readily. That many things (not all, by any means, but many) regarded as laws, especially in physics, have less provability than many others that are regarded as theory in other disciplines. I directly said that chemistry and biology treat theory correctly, so where you get this whole misunderstanding is beyond me. As far as the part about mathematics, my physics prof. at least views physics as applied mathematics, and that the "law" that the company in this article is trying to break has as much, if not the majority of its weight, in mathematics than in physics.