This.theultimateend said:
All we can do know if hope cell phone and service providers don't try to stop it.
OnLive Founder Claims "Impossible" Wireless Breakthrough
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All we can do know if hope cell phone and service providers don't try to stop it.
Those that make cellphone will sure not try to stop it, for such network basically mean hardline phone lines are gonna join the telegraph, due to such wireless network been good enough to fully replace the wired one, so they will sell even more cellphones.Jabberwock xeno said:
The service provider on the other hand might react like a fossil fuel company would to the discovery of cold fusion.
EDIT: The post acted oddly and had part of a post I cancelled, so deleted that part, thing back in order now, sorry if my post confused anyone at first.
The physics say you can only have a certain amount of bandwidth on a single signal.
They don't say you can't have multiple signals.
That's probably what 'distributed' means. So if instead of one receiver and one sender, you have a hundred receivers and a hundred senders, but you put all the receivers in one box, and all the senders in another box... so long as you've got the computing power to handle all the input and output (which we certainly do), you're going to have increased bandwidth by 100X.
Science never claimed you can't do that.
They don't say you can't have multiple signals.
That's probably what 'distributed' means. So if instead of one receiver and one sender, you have a hundred receivers and a hundred senders, but you put all the receivers in one box, and all the senders in another box... so long as you've got the computing power to handle all the input and output (which we certainly do), you're going to have increased bandwidth by 100X.
Science never claimed you can't do that.
oh i was just curious if it was a regional thing in your area where people don't have cell phones or if might have been just you, but you have your reasons and i was just curious i suppose, i see you get annoyed by unnecessary social interactions more than the average person..JMeganSnow said:
and out of all the people i know, i don't know a single one who actually uses the calender function of the cell phone, and most people i know have an itouch or a psp for "portable entertainment", rather than using their phone.
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."
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."
Inrigued. Very intrigued. I'm not going to pretend like I understand all the science behind it, but from I DID understand, I'm impressed. Something I'll be keeping my eye on.
EDIT
EDIT
You might want to check the internet speeds in Japan. They are much, MUCH faster than Europe/USA.kouriichi said:
Man this is a nice bit of tech he claims. Must doubt till I see it in action. But want believe..... grahh.
So they could apply this tech to the internet, thus giving us insanely fast speeds right. Cause even though I have high speed... well half the pages usually don't load. But I don't pay for it so I live with it. I want super internet dammit.
So they could apply this tech to the internet, thus giving us insanely fast speeds right. Cause even though I have high speed... well half the pages usually don't load. But I don't pay for it so I live with it. I want super internet dammit.
Thats not really true; many physical barriers are longstanding and have no indication of breaking. And since science rarely deals in "impossibility," at least as far as credible science goes, it's hard to hold that these things are the regular of tomorrow.Veloxe said:
As it is, I await proof of this concept in action, mostly because I think it's the easiest way to see whether he's done the "impossible" or not.
As far as i understand he didn't break any laws of physics and The Escapist should remove that mention from this article.
All he does is go -around- the problem. I.e. you cant go faster than light, except if you move space (aka Alcubierre Drive).
The maximum transmission problem has to do with frequencies of binary data transmission on one band, and if i understand his claim correctly, he just proposed distributing the bandwidth onto several bands.
This would be the same principle as cloud-computing in general.
There is no single one-core (silicon) processor in the world capable to reach petaFLOPS, and never will be - its physically impossible, but supercomputers do reach petaFLOPS through distributed computing of thousands of processors.
What he proposes is, simplified, a dual/quad/hex-core just for WiFi and not processors.
All he does is go -around- the problem. I.e. you cant go faster than light, except if you move space (aka Alcubierre Drive).
The maximum transmission problem has to do with frequencies of binary data transmission on one band, and if i understand his claim correctly, he just proposed distributing the bandwidth onto several bands.
This would be the same principle as cloud-computing in general.
There is no single one-core (silicon) processor in the world capable to reach petaFLOPS, and never will be - its physically impossible, but supercomputers do reach petaFLOPS through distributed computing of thousands of processors.
What he proposes is, simplified, a dual/quad/hex-core just for WiFi and not processors.
"Impossible" just means people haven't figured out how to do it yet. I'm very careful in using that word, simply because what was impossible yesterday is reality today. "Improbable" is a much better word. I find it very improbable that this DIDO technology will do all that is being claimed. That said, I certainly can hope it's true. Bandwidth is becoming a huge problem for cellular networks, with the explosion of the smartphone. Something like this would literally change the world, if it turns out to be true.
That said, it sounds a hell of a lot like some kind of science fiction sub-space radio stuff, straight out of Star Trek. I'll not hold my breath.
That said, it sounds a hell of a lot like some kind of science fiction sub-space radio stuff, straight out of Star Trek. I'll not hold my breath.
This is exactly the heart of the issue. We're claiming that this is "impossible" because it violates a law that was invented more than 25 years before the first cell phone. Radio was great and all, but show me whoever came up with and tested that law, and let's see how qualified they are to even comprehend the advances in wireless technology since, let alone technology in general. Their old methods and assumptions are inferior.kouriichi said:
And yeah, MIMO (a technology that already exists and which is in my own home wireless router right this second) already breaks this flimsy law to some extent.
Besides, for all we really know, maybe DIDO doesn't use the same sort of "wireless" that we've come to know. Maybe they've found another way to transmit information wirelessly besides the radio waves we rely on today.
OP: I think you mean the "Shannon-Hartley theorem" as "Shannon's Law" commonly means laws against firing gunshots into the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_law_(Arizona)
My Bullshit detector always sparks when it comes to OnLive, they have made so many outrageous claims that imply something very different from what they actually do. Many of their claims have not lived up to expectation, like very high quality games and resolution, but compressed so much that it might as well be in standard-definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%27s_law_(Arizona)
My Bullshit detector always sparks when it comes to OnLive, they have made so many outrageous claims that imply something very different from what they actually do. Many of their claims have not lived up to expectation, like very high quality games and resolution, but compressed so much that it might as well be in standard-definition.
I would love to see this working, be proven true, and become the new standard. But as it has been said before big companies will resist this with all their might and shut it down. Or they will adopt it and find a way to make it so ridiculously expensive, that most people won't bother with it.
I would love to see new start up companies release this tech and just destroy all the current cell phone providers. Just drive them into the ground, dead. The same way I would love to see an alternative fuel and engine design destroy the oil business.
Wishful thinking though.
I would love to see new start up companies release this tech and just destroy all the current cell phone providers. Just drive them into the ground, dead. The same way I would love to see an alternative fuel and engine design destroy the oil business.
Wishful thinking though.
