OnLive Founder Claims "Impossible" Wireless Breakthrough

[Mister Linton]

Shannon's Law sounds stupid and I would be disinclined to believe that crap to begin with. If a wireless signal can be sent instantly or almost instantly to a device, then the only resriciton on how fast info can be sent is the transmitting device and the recieving device. (i.e. make modems and phones that can encode/decode info faster, and the sky is the limit)

Its not the speed that is limited but the amount of information.
Think of it this way.
You have a clear lake in which you throw a small rock. The induced waves from the rock are your signal and each wave peak is one information.
You can clearly distinguish them if the peaks don't touch.

The next day you come back and the weather is stormy. The surface of the lake is noise and you throw the stone again. This time the noise from weather conceal your waves and you can only see them by throwing a larger stone.

This analogy might not be the perfect one to describe the mathematical model but it shows the principle behind it quite well I think.

But if your vision (recieving device technology) were improved, you could distinguish the waves no matter how close together they were or how much interference existed. Like morse code, the faster the sender and reciever are, the more info transferred faster.

 

[YunikoYokai5]

You know what they say when you assume.

My friends can also all read maps, and if something really, truly bizarre happens at the last minute, well, I can eat at the restaurant by myself and walk home. Not a disaster.

I classify emergencies as things like "my house exploded!" and "I fell down and broke my leg!" not "I think I took a wrong turn!" or "I don't know what to wear!" Any adult ought to be able to resolve the latter two by themselves, maybe even consider it a bit of an adventure. I'm not in a position where I could actually help with the first two, so they're better off calling the fire department or the paramedics.

None of my friends have asked me what they should wear XD I never assumed your friends would either, your friends and mine can decide for themselves (and they know better than to ask me anyway) . The 'lost' thing has happened to me once or twice (both getting a bit lost (mainly when I meet my friends in the city outskirts) and helping one of my friends who got a bit lost (when they first tried to locate my house) ) so phones had helped there.

Also, not everyone carries a map Sure, we look before we leave but we're human, so we can forget or get confused or something. I'll stop pestering you after this, I swear ^.^' So what would you do if (God forbid) you are out with a friend and they suddenly collapse and there is no immediate phone facilities (very unlikely, but still as an example), how would you get paramedics? (I found myself in this situation before. My mum has hypertension and collapses sometimes. A mobile probably saved her life then)). Not looking for an argument/debate. Just saying mobiles have their uses.

 

[GWarface]

Great, if this is true and gets out on the streets, we will be bathed in even stronger electro-smog..

Brain-cancer for everyone!




-.-

 

[Loboludo]

Shannon's Law sounds stupid and I would be disinclined to believe that crap to begin with. If a wireless signal can be sent instantly or almost instantly to a device, then the only resriciton on how fast info can be sent is the transmitting device and the recieving device. (i.e. make modems and phones that can encode/decode info faster, and the sky is the limit)

Its not the speed that is limited but the amount of information.
Think of it this way.
You have a clear lake in which you throw a small rock. The induced waves from the rock are your signal and each wave peak is one information.
You can clearly distinguish them if the peaks don't touch.

The next day you come back and the weather is stormy. The surface of the lake is noise and you throw the stone again. This time the noise from weather conceal your waves and you can only see them by throwing a larger stone.

This analogy might not be the perfect one to describe the mathematical model but it shows the principle behind it quite well I think.

But if your vision (recieving device technology) were improved, you could distinguish the waves no matter how close together they were or how much interference existed. Like morse code, the faster the sender and reciever are, the more info transferred faster.

Only if you are louder then the noise and that is the point behind the theorem. If you are as loud as the background the signal becomes indistinguishable. Improving the resolution doesn't make chaos less chaotic.
You have to keep in mind that the noise is a chaotic quantity and you can't see a clear interference pattern but white noise.

 

[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.