Slashdot Mirror

This is an old protocol based on uucp. See the uubp man page for more information.

The benefit of G.lite is two fold:
1. You don't have to install a bandwidth splitter, so the company doesn't need to send a truck out- they can just send you the modem. This saves big bucks for the phone company.
2. They have fast retrain, which means that when you pick up your phone to make a call, the DSL service is re-established in less than 2 seconds. Picking up (and then hanging up) your phone drastically changes the characteristics of the line for a moment, and DSL connections can't stay established through a transition like that.
Other than that, there's no advantage to G.lite- it suffers from the same distance limitations. You could say you get full rate G.lite for a greater distance than normal ADSL (G.dmt), but that would be misleading, because full speed for G.dmt is around 8 Mbs (theoretically 14 Mbs), while G.lite is 1.5 Mbs. With respect to distance, when the max rate for G.dmt drops to the max rate for G.lite, they both start to lose bandwidth at about the same rate.
Another slight difference is that G.lite can only be used in the interleaved channel, while G.dmt can be fast or interleaved. Interleaved uses a more involved trellis coding and error correction than fast channel, and therefor gets higher data rates at greater line lengths. At lower line lengths, it gets lower speeds than the fast channel. Also, Fast channel has lower latency (but they're both so low, you shouldn't notice the difference)
If you want to check out the site for the lab I work at, go here: http://www.iol.unh.edu/consortiums/

i'm going to assume that you were just trolling, but for the masses that are sure to follow you into the depths of ignorance which need an education:
(and no, i'm not british)

try here for some self-help.

Actually there is an entire field of neural network vibration control that started out as adaptive vibration cancellation. In a 1989 demonstration for the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, SAIC had a demonstration where they placed 1, then 2 then 3 accellerometers at various arbitrary places on a 3D grid structure being stimulated by some vibrators similar to those spoken of in the article here. Then the outputs of those accellerometers were fed as "pain" signals to a recurrent neural network that controlled some other vibrators. When the neural network was turned on, the vibrators under its control would vary frequency, phase and amplitude until vibration was cancelled out at precisely the 3 locations at which the accellerometers were placed. You could then pick the accellerometers up and put them back down somewhere else and the neural network would adapt within a few seconds, cancelling out its painful inputs.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I used to work for the University of New Hampshire InterOperability Lab (www.iol.unh.edu) while I was a student at UNH. That lab is the interoperability mecca. They test hundreds of products each year from countless vendors for compliance to the major networking standards.

All the big netwokring players are there; Cisco, Nortel, 3Com, Intel, HP, etc., plus many smaller companies send their stuff their. They all strive for the IOL's stamp of approval because that usually means their product will work in any sort of mixed vendor environment.

I saw plenty of devices come into the lab right before they were ready to ship and we would turn over our results and they would have to delay their shipping until they fixed their problems. It's pretty amazing to see a product that claims to be "compliant to X standard" and see it perform like a bunch of monkeys wrote the code.

If I had to give advice to up-and-coming network hardware manufacturers, it would be to get your product tested for interoperability. If your product doesn't work with other companies products, you'll have a tough time selling them on the market.

Just my two cents.

//RageEar

The second major fscking fault a lot of people are making is beleieving that the Pentagram, a star with five (penta-five) points, is the Star of David. The Star of David has SIX points and is most easily drawn using two triangles... Please spread the word!..

Thank you.
//Frisco
--
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." -Goethe

Understanding radiation's effect on silicon requires quite advanced degrees, which I don't have. But I do work on a small satellite project (here). So I am familar with the results.

Over the long term, radiation exposure causes the circuitry to slow down. In the short term, there are two things that can happen:

Single event upset (SEU): When a radioactive particle penetrates the silicon, it can cause a bit to flip. Corrupting memory, while annoying, generally isn't fatal.

Latch up: this is dangerous. Latch up essentially causes a short circuit and can destroy the effected circuit.

Depending on the manufacturing processes, a chip may be more or less succeptable to these damages. 386's are tremendously resistant to radiation damage, even the commercial ones -- much more than 486's.

As for why using a 486? History, and time scale. As was mentioned elsewhere, these projects take years. Even my project has been going on since early 1996, and we're a considered a very small project.

History means that the project has been used for a long time and that its known to be reliable and bug free. You don't want to send an overly complex, new chip into space. If something breaks, you're screwed. It can be nearly impossible to force a reboot of a space-based computer. A lot of time and money is spent researching which chips have been used in space before. No one wants to be the first to try a particular chip.

For comparison purposes, my satellite uses two 80186-12 processors, which we're running at 10MHz to compensate for the slow-down effects of radiation. It's tough to deal with a slow processor, but at the time the satellite was designed, it was the best choice for us. These processors cost us $400/ea because they are "mil-spec."

I couldn't locate the Mac zealot URL that states Apple invented wireless.. do you remember where you saw it?? :)

Wireless that doesn't suck *is* new tho. Knee-jerk labeling is IMO just as bad as zealotry...