Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

Posted by kdawson on from the not-to-be-confused-with-iphone-hack dept.

Lorien_the_first_one brings word that in Europe, a breakthrough for post-4G communications has been announced. A public-private consortium known as IPHOBAC has been developing new communications technology that is near commercialization now. Quoting: "With much of the mobile world yet to migrate to 3G mobile communications, let alone 4G, European researchers are already working on a new technology able to deliver data wirelessly up to 12.5Gb/s. The technology — known as 'millimeter-wave' or microwave photonics — has commercial applications not just in telecommunications (access and in-house networks) but also in instrumentation, radar, security, radio astronomy and other fields."

134 comments

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Im already using it. Its awesome.

    1. Re:fp by bytesex · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're right. That *was* fast.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:fp by garphik · · Score: 1

      Okay, for it to actually work ... the servers should also support such bandwidth.

    3. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said :-(

    4. Re:fp by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Or you could peg the bandwidth of a dozen different downloads (bittorrent).

  2. Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    When we look at how far behind the American wireless industry is compared to the overseas systems, it's not always correct to simply look at the current status. It's much more important to look at the growth over time, because it is only when you do that do you realize that the American system is keeping pace with European and Asian cellular systems.

    Yes, at any particular moment in time the American system may seem far behind, but at some point we do upgrade to the latest and greatest. It just takes a lot more time to decide which version of the latest and greatest we will implement.

    So it's much more like taking an elevator to go from one floor to another here in the US. We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

    1. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

      Meanwhile, Japanese are upset because they're getting throttled to 900 Gb upload a month. Awful slow elevator, that. Notice how this was 8 months ago.

    2. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's much more like taking an elevator to go from one floor to another here in the US. We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

      Yes, we have noticed

    3. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your analogy would make more sense if America were making big leaps every few years in communication tech. However, just looking at the internet alone, so many people are still left with dial-up and will be there indefinitely while others here have Verizon Fios, the other side of the residential spectrum. Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds. Hell, just look at the gauge of wire for electricity that get to the super high % amount of population except the most, most remote, and also being able to provide telephone service for those same people too - and then tell me laying fiber optic is too expensive.

      The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following). Suddenly Verizon felt threatened. But otherwise they stayed slothful, providing as little service as possible while extracting the greatest price. They only moved when they felt threatened (how Verizon shat itself and went to court when Philadelphia proposed ubiquitous wireless internet). It seems that way with many of the monopolies. Hell, even regular old cellular service is abysmal in this country once you go past the population centers of the east and west coast. Nevermind cellular data service.

      Which is too bad. So much of the internet is really hampered by the traditional view of it being on the desktop. In a stationary place. The notebook boom coupled with WiFi spots moved to alleviate that but it really isn't on the go yet. The iPhone was probably the first mainstream product but service is still very expensive and no matter what you choose, pretty slow. Just as the internet was the killer app of the last 20 years, changing how we live; cheap, relatively speedy, ubiquitous wireless internet would probably be the next killer app the next 20 years.

    4. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by wisty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Too bad if you live in Australia. :(

    5. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by penix1 · · Score: 1

      The problem as I see it with all these "they are faster than us" studies is the assumption that customers want the more expensive, faster solution in rural areas. I live in a rural state and can tell you that most here don't give a shit about speed and look more at the price because they tend to be poorer than the city dwellers. You can have a service that offers faster than light speed but if it costs an arm, leg and your first born, then people won't bite. Add to that the fact that most rural America sees a higher price because it is rural (and usually dominated by a single monopoly) and there is your reason uptake is slow out here in the boonies.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    6. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Horse shit. Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Fact is, the US has fallen behind because our "business leaders" are to busy having huge circle jerks, trying to figure out how to use modern technology to rip off the consumer. Witness the number of lawsuits filed to prevent towns and counties from implementing internet service in areas that no corporation was interested in supplying service anyway. Yes, look at how far behind we are today. And, think about how far behind we'll be in another ten years. Then, write you congressman to make things happen, and stop whining out your excuses for substandard performance on America's part.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Maybe an arm, a leg, and the second born child? Hey, the ISP might be willing to barter!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      yeh, we just get stuff that doesn't break from fire, floods, wildlife, trees... the list goes on.

    9. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by ion.simon.c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Add to that the fact that most rural America sees a higher price because it is ... usually dominated by a single monopoly ... and there is your reason uptake is slow out here in the boonies.

      This is the PP's point. :)

    10. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just look at the gauge of wire for electricity

      I have looked and it appears to be of larger diameter than CAT5/telephone wiring. I think this is beacuse it has to carry larger currents.

    11. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the 90s? Back then the US had cable internet or at least unmetered dialup. All of Europe was green with envy. We were paying by the minute for dialup internet access and only the few who were lucky enough to be in college at the time had affordable fast internet access. That was when being ahead mattered, btw: That was when all the big internet businesses started. To this day, the cornerstones of internet culture and infrastructure are American.

      The pendulum swings. My guess is that the US will be back with LTE, just like many third world countries are leapfrogging the wired communication stage. Mobile internet access is the next wave, not ever faster access which tethers you to your desk. While European network operators will be looking to recoup their investments in wired last mile networks and "last-gen" UMTS before moving on to ubiquitous unmetered network access, the chance of LTE soon becoming affordable is much bigger in the US.

    12. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      900Gb on a mobile device? Are you fucking retarded? If you aren't gonna read TFA, at least read TFS of this one and the article in your link, ffs.

    13. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Population density is the wrong measure. Customers per infrastructure dollar is probably a lot closer to being correct. If the rural population of a relatively small country is limited, the country will appear to have a low population density, but most of the infrastructure will serve people living at high densities. The U.S. happens to have a significant number of people living at a low population density, so there are lots of areas where there is a lot of infrastructure per customer.

      Still, the lightly regulated pseudo-monopoly carriers that don't invest in areas that are expensive to serve are a much bigger problem than geography (and under that regulation, they are supposed to work to serve everyone, not just the customers that give the highest returns...).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds.

      It's not just about population density... it's also about the sheer size of some of our low-density areas. The United States has areas twice the size of the UK with half the population density. Sure, if we were on an island and only had this small area to run wire all over the place, we would, but America is much bigger than the UK if you haven't noticed. It takes a longass time to get places wired, and certain areas have more priority than others in the race to high speed internet.

    15. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following).

      Unfortunately, that's anecdotal evidence. Mine refutes that, but it's just as invalid as it's anecdotal as well

      On my side of things, I live in a small suburb. We're somewhat near a Verizon office (not in town, but not too far away). Yet Verizon was pretty quick to wire us for DSL and later Fios; and DSL was WAY before VoiP was big (or perhaps even an option).

      We weren't among the first neighborhoods to receive either, nor in the absolute first batch. I recall getting annoyed hearing that some nearby towns were getting it while we didn't. But we still got it comparatively early.

      Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds.

      I wouldn't call it dead, it still has validity but isn't the overall answer unless we actually compare.

      We have large stretches of rural countryside that probably weigh in with the size of some European countries in-total. We're not the biggest, Canada, Russia, and China out-class us but we're still big.

      So a good indicator is, how well do those 3 countries handle their Cell + Internet coverage in the rural areas which are probably larger than ours? If their rural coverage puts ours to shame, then we should feel bad. If we're about equal, then we shouldn't

      Overall size can mean more than overall percentage. Think about comparing the lawn care of 2 homes, specifically pulling weeds. Do you really care that Client 1 has a smaller percentage of weeds in their garden than Client 2, if Client 1 still manages to have more weeks since their property is a lot larger?

      Unfortunately, I don't know any hard numbers. I'd say if Canada beats us in their "middle-of-nowhere" coverage then it's game over.

    16. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest we should abandon the continent.

    17. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You americans are all the same. Die infidel!

    18. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, if we were on an island

      You are on an island. We have several countries on ours too :)

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    19. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? Seriously, wtff?

      There's no evidence of what you're saying - not in connectivity or other tech for consumers. We've been stuck with an inferior television standard for decades - once you've seen PAL, you'll dislike NTSC (Never The Same Color) even more and most of Europe have already switched to digital so it seems to me that if we take the elevator, we only go to a floor that the others have already left.

    20. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Our data travels at the speed of our people. ;)

    21. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Sort of....My point added to PP's was that rural people tend to be poorer overall. They also tend to have more of an outside life especially in agricultural areas and have little online usage. This is a generalization based on where I live in WV and totally unsupported with data but is what I see when I look out the window...;-)

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    22. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      You are on an island.

      Okay. Technically, you're right, but that's still beside the point. This island we are on is many many times the size of these European countries rolfwind was talking about, and as such it takes much longer, costs much more money, and is logically more difficult to implement high-speed data connections in our lower-density areas. Add to that the fact that the lower-density areas are typically lower income and aren't as willing or able to pay for these higher-speed connections... it all adds up for the telecom companies.

    23. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did?

      Well, France had a widespread online service with interactive features, email, etc., long before the United States had similar penetration of similar technology, much less on a shared network, though it wasn't "the internet".

    24. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Alright, I have to ask: "Long before the United States" means, what, 5 years? 10 years? Whatever the answer to that might be, I must point out that here in southwest Arkansas, Dialup only became availbe about 1999, and DSL only became available in early 2008. It isn't a lack of technology that caused this - the universities and community colleges are working with fiber NOW. My son who attends SAU downloads full length movies in minutes, while it takes up to a week for me to do the same. The problem is with the companies, who find it to be highly lucrative to develop a market in Dallas, or Little Rock, but neglect the backwaters. Government SHOULD guide development, but it doesn't. Oh, same goes for cell phone service. I owned a cell phone as long as 10 years ago, but couldn't use it from my home county - no coverage. Good grief!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The problem is with the companies, who find it to be highly lucrative to develop a market in Dallas, or Little Rock, but neglect the backwaters. Government SHOULD guide development, but it doesn't.

      I certainly agree with you that the source of the disparity is in government policy; but we can't have government "guiding development" in the US, because that would be "socialism".

    26. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Yes, the USA is much bigger. So why don't you divide it into smaller more-manageable pieces (you could call them states, or perhaps counties). Then when they are each smaller than European countries you can just emulate the rest of the world and get the broadband that you need. Or perhaps you will just have to think of another excuse as to why everyone can do it apart from the USA....

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    27. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      Still, that's beside the point. The USA has only a handful of main telecom companies that cover the entire nation. If we had only a couple in each state, and they were separate from the others in the other states, maybe your words would have some merit; but as it stands, they don't.

    28. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's another good excuse. But, haven't the telco's already been subsidised to provide the internet connection? I'm not an American, but other posts on /. seem to suggest that they were given the money over a decade ago but haven't yet produced the goods.

      I'm still not convinced that the nation that put a man on the moon cannot even get broadband to everyone in the country.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    29. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      I'm having trouble keeping up with your point. Is the problem that you live in a big country, or is the problem that your telecom companies aren't good enough?

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    30. Re:Take the stairs? Take the elevator? by Fleeting+Thought · · Score: 1

      Well, in US the telecoms have had a death grip over the users and devices which hasn't driven innovation. Seems still like there would not be real competition.

      --
      Indie mobile developer http://mpaja.com/
  3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1, Funny

    At 30-300 Ghz wireless toasts you!

  4. Re:In Soviet Russia... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    At 30-300 Ghz wireless toasts you!

    Not if there is a wall between you and the transmitter though.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  5. Fry by pmarini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and how many of those radiowaves are going to fry our brains ? let me see:
    - 10 thousands satellites beaming down their TV programmes and GPS coordinates
    - 1 thousand TV stations beaming up their programmes (that's very high power)
    - 500 millions of cordless phone handsets (frequencies anyone ?)
    - 100 millions cordless keyboards and mice (ranging from 40MHz to 2.4GHz)
    - 2 billions cellphones and millions of related cellular-comms-towers
    - billions of wi-fi connections from portable phones, laptops, VoIP, ...
    - billions of bluetooth-enabled devices
    - brand new wireless video devices...

    bar the obvious tinfoil jokes, we are going to use a new excuse for calling sick, like "my brain is upset this morning, it must be the new access point that I installed yesterday... sorry, you'll have to cover for me until I finish restoring my brain backup from yest#%@ - what is this email that I sent to myself with a password for a new access point ?"

    --
    Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
    Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
    1. Re:Fry by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Fry by should_be_linear · · Score: 2, Funny

      Photons are dangerous, ask Schroedinger's cat !

      --
      839*929
    3. Re:Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most of us bathe...

      Speak for yourself, mate.

    4. Re:Fry by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're talking crap.

      Whilst IR photons have a higher energy than microwaves, so do visible light photons.

      On the other hand, opacity and absorbtion of various human tissues, is a complex relationship with wavelength.

    5. Re:Fry by BlueParrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

      It is all about how people perceive risks and fail to consider them rationally. A bit of a similar example is how a number of people are up in arms about the rates of violent crime, and are willing to sacrifice their liberties and privacy if the government merely suggests it might perhaps help, yet consider the prospect of biking to work unthinkable, despite the benefits it would grant them in terms of reduced risks of heart diseases and stroke. From a rational point of view the latter is a much greater risk to people's quality of life and wellbeing, but the former sells more newspapers and hence receives a results in a disproportionate amount of concern.

    6. Re:Fry by famebait · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

      And so the question inevitably arises:
      Do you in fact know enough about photons and radiation for your failure to see any problems to imply with any degree of probability that there are no problem problem?
      Or should our conclusion be simply "no, you don't, do you?".

      Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    7. Re:Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most of us bathe...

      Speak for yourself, mate.

      Good to see the English (1) are represented on slashdot.

      1) By English, I mean English.

      The Scotts, Welsh, North Irish, Cornish, Manx, Jersey islanders etc - all know what a shower is.

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, I love the smell of reverse racism in the morning (or any time of day really).

    8. Re:Fry by jabithew · · Score: 1

      The Isle of Man, Jersey Islands etc. are not in the United Kingdom.

      Also, when comparing the cleanliness of of different regions of the UK, I invite you to consider this link.

      Guess where I live :P.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    9. Re:Fry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You ask the damned cat yourelf! I'm afraid that if I open the box, I'll be the one to drop dead!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Fry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I checked out the link. The data suggests to me that the men of London might be a bunch of poofs who are full of shit, but the men of New Castle got up early enough to take a dump before boarding the train. Glad I don't ride the trains in London, with all the poofs passing gas!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Fry by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Yeah, washing your hands after taking a dump is for queers!

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    12. Re:Fry by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, SchrÃdinger's cat observes YOU!

    13. Re:Fry by aapold · · Score: 1

      Dear sir:

      I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms your implication that there is a health hazard from using 4G communication devices. Many of my friends use them and only a few have had their heads explode.

      Sincerely, Brig. Gen. Brian O'Connell (Scanner). P.S. And don't call me baby

      --
      "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    14. Re:Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In Soviet Amerika, Bush observes us ALL!

    15. Re:Fry by hitmark · · Score: 1

      If only Gutenberg had known what a weapon he was creating...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    16. Re:Fry by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Funny

      there's no point washing your hands, you've already cleaned your hands by pulling up your pants and then dried them by tucking in yur shirt

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re:Fry by jschen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

      This has been experimentally verified in experiments on the photoelectric effect. Indeed, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" (emphasis mine; notice that Einstein did not win the prize "because of relativity", as many would assume). Below a certain energy level per photon, nothing happens no matter how intense the light. Above the threshold, something happens (with the rate dependent on the intensity of the light).

      Of course, thermal warming can also happen. In recent years, microwave-assisted organic synthesis was a big fad. But the most careful studies have demonstrated that the so-called "microwave effect" is simple thermal heating in all known cases, and despite theoretical explanations for why a non-thermal microwave effect might exist (going so far as to predict the types of reactions for which the largest effect might be found) and papers claiming the discovery of such effects, effects seen to date are purely thermal. See this J Org Chem paper. Any effect we see from a cell phone in the pocket would appear to be the same effect as simply warming our thigh a miniscule bit.

    18. Re:Fry by maxume · · Score: 1

      What are you, a vampire?

      Ah, the sun, the sun, it is irradiating me!

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Fry by gadabyte · · Score: 1

      it's "flynt".

      --
      the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
    20. Re:Fry by hobbit · · Score: 1

      You might want to look up the word "race" sometime.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    21. Re:Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you get to ionizing readiation it's not only, or even primarily, about frequency. Lower frequency radiation can couple with biological processes in a way that higher frequency cannot in some cases.

    22. Re:Fry by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      "yet consider the prospect of biking to work unthinkable, despite the benefits it would grant them in terms of reduced risks of heart diseases and stroke."

      I think you have failed to include the increased risk of being hit by a car. It only has to happen to you once, and you will probably not be willing to ever ride to work again, even if you weren't injured. Heart disease it distant and uncertain, any kind of exercise can prevent it. Getting hit by a car while you're riding you bike is a real wake-up call.

    23. Re:Fry by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Most cordless handsets I've seen are either illegal or abuse the 433MHz ISM band...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  6. They'll stuff it in implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll bolt Siebel onto it and turn it into a dog's breakfast like Telstra here in Australia with NextG!

  7. did anyone read the summary and think by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    "Smooth move, Ex-Lax!"

    1. Re:did anyone read the summary and think by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Do you mean radar for smart wheels?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:did anyone read the summary and think by 1%warren · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as soon as I connected "millimetre" & "radar". I wonder how long the thread can go without actually mentioning the book & the author. /me gets his glass knife ready.

      --

      Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
    3. Re:did anyone read the summary and think by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      I have wanted that skateboard since the day I first opened that book...

    4. Re:did anyone read the summary and think by zolf13 · · Score: 1

      I am reading it in work now :) (work can wait, it won't run too far)

  8. Love in an elevator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take the stairs? Take the elevator?

    No: Open the door. Smell the cheese.

  9. Siebel will break it! by firephox · · Score: 1

    They'll ruin it by bolting Siebel onto it like Telstra here in Australia with NextG!

    1. Re:Siebel will break it! by Cyanara · · Score: 1

      Being forced to look at Telstra Wireless as my only option for "broadband", I gotta ask, what is Siebel, and why is it bad?

    2. Re:Siebel will break it! by firephox · · Score: 1

      Siebel is the new system, they're shutting down the old system before the new one is up and most people are untrained! The 7.2 system is actually pretty quick if you can get 3 or more bars of signal, only get one that can take the plug in external antenna! Unfortunately the prepaid device cannot do this.

    3. Re:Siebel will break it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, didn't you say the same thing 15 minutes before this post as as AC? http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1161853&cid=27207919 Post whore much?

    4. Re:Siebel will break it! by firephox · · Score: 1

      Yep, being lazy as AC, but it doesn't actually show up on my machine (?) so I did it properly!

  10. Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G by George_Ou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    4G is a mobile solution where the signal is radiated every direction and cells get blanketed by signals that are useful to mobile devices. Millimeter wave is a point-to-point technology that requires a clear line of sight and should be compared to free space optic laser solutions. You so much as block the beam with a tree branch and it doesn't work. Can we try to get some quality reporting on slashdot? We have plenty of experts in this community and headlines like these need to get slapped down. We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.

    1. Re:Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G by qc_dk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You find "Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless" to be USA bashing????
      <sarcasm>Well I am truly sorry that someone outside the US is trying to do research. I'll stop mine immediately and wait for our benevolent super power for life to do the research and give me what I need. I'll just be over in this cave eating raw animals. I wouldn't want to be the reason for another US "bashing".
      </sarcasm>
      This post was tagged to comply with the Sarcasm-impaired Aid Directive (SAD)

    2. Re:Yikes, you can't compare this to 4G by Cyner · · Score: 1

      This isn't "new" technology. I have a book on wireless backhaul technology that's 6 years old and has information on 68GHz links gigabit links. At that time there was no commercial product available, but the information was included because they knew it would be coming. Proxim also makes a commercial setup currently (granted it's only 1.25 Gbps, but it's on the shelf right now, and has been for a while) product link.

      These 30GHz+ links operate over a very short distance, less than 1 Km, and must have a clear line of sight (which is actual an area, see Fresnel Zones). As PP mentioned anything getting in the way will kill the signal; at higher frequencies/distances even rain or snow. As usual wiki has a good article on EHF.

      --
      FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
  11. great....overage-city in no time. by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Funny

    12.5Gbps which means 1.5625GBps and the data transfer limits we have in the states here, it will take 3.2 seconds to be in overage-city.
    Hmmm...isn't that faster than a Porsche's or Ferrari's 0 to 60 speed?

    [sarcasm]The good thing is....it'll be at least 5 years since they have it in Europe until we have it here[/sarcasm]

  12. Whoa, This Can Be Big by aoheno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Land line went years ago. Fiber will be next together with the 1Gbps wired LAN and everything hanging off it - especially the not so green power adapters, quaint WAPs, Switches, and Routers.

    Imagine no more ISPs. Netflix can stop throttling. Computers only need RAM and boot from the cloud.

    Will my 4G Google phone need a small power station or will a standard adapter do?

    --
    Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks ...
    1. Re:Whoa, This Can Be Big by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      I swear that could be a mantra for some new geek religion...

  13. Re:Fry - not by willijar · · Score: 1

    These systems typically have short range in air and thus require many antennas closely spaced. The consequence is that distances are smaller and therefore, due to the inverse square law, the power needed at each antenna is much smaller and the average power in the environment will be much smaller.

  14. Resonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's not just energy, but resonance as well. High energy photons destroy your DNA and cells by brute force. Lower frequency photons do it by resonating with your DNA and cells and shaking them to bits. It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.

    1. Re:Resonance by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, resonant processes are the ones that depend absolutely upon the photon energy, and the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting. Microwaves can do work by a nonresonant, thermal process, but that's it.

      A resonant process is one in which the photon has the right energy to trigger a particular transition. Ionising radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) works by a resonant process, and depends on the quantum of radiation having enough energy to eject an electron from the molecule. As you go down in energy from there, you have enough energy per photon to resonantly electronically excite molecules (visual light, used in the eyes to detect light) or vibrationally excite (IR), or down at the bottom, to rotationally (microwave), and then translationally excite molecules.

      Correspondingly, it gets harder and harder to cause any chemistry with those photons. It's trivial to break up a molecule by shifting its electrons around or ejecting them altogether, or to a lesser extent it's possible to chop something up by exciting a particular molecular stretching vibration such that the bond(s) dissociate(s). However it's a serious challenge to cleave a bond with a rotational excitation alone.

      So, how could a microwave do any chemistry, and thus damage, to your tissues? It's a simple thermal process. When you rotationally excite a molecule, in the gas phase, the molecule, or part of it, changes its rotational motion in some way. There are couplings between rotational and vibrational motions, and upwards to electronic excitations. In the solution or solid phase, there are also couplings to the translational motion of the molecules, meaning that ultimately the energy from the microwave can end up speeding up the molecule's motion, which is plain old heating.

      So the energy you dump in with the microwaves becomes "thermalised", spreading over the whole range of states evenly, with a pretty huge chunk of it going into heating up the material. That heat lets you do old-fashioned collision-activated chemistry. What the anti-EM movement don't want you to think about is that this thermal process is entirely dependent on your exposure. It's like standing next to a furnace. A foot away, you're toast. Six feet away, you're warm. One hundred feet away, you don't know it exists.

      In summary, it is not possible for radio to cause you thermal damage because the exposure is simply too low. No non-thermal, resonant process for damage has been shown to exist, and trivial physical chemistry makes it clear that one probably never will be found.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Resonance by amorsen · · Score: 1

      It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.

      Water doesn't have a sharp absorption peak, and 2.4GHz is in fact picked to NOT absorb too efficiently. At some frequencies water would absorb the radiation so well that only the outermost layer of food would be heated.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Resonance by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz

      No, it's not. You can use just about any frequency for RF heating. The reason 2.4GHz is used is because it's cheap and easy to make cavity magnetrons that produce a hell of a lot of power in a compact package, and 2.4GHz has a very wide ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band where no licence is required. They need quite a wide band, because the magnetrons aren't very stable and drift a lot.

      You could make a UHF "microwave" oven using the 433MHz ISM band, but a 700W amplifier would be complicated and expensive, and you'd need to have the frequency very accurately controlled. Also, radio amateurs would come round to your house and smash all your windows when you fired it up.

    4. Re:Resonance by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google around for papers by Dr. Eleanor Adair. She was an expert on RF exposure, and has done thousands of Simian and Human exposure tests as described in this NY Times Article. She claims to have personally tried every test before using it on her subjects, with no ill effects, ever. I tend to believe it, since the frequencies involved are 10^6 times lower than ionizing radiation that is proven dangerous.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:Resonance by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It depends what you mean by "no chance". Nothing we've learnt scientifically to date suggests this would cause cancer. Of course that doesn't mean there is "no chance" since we may learn something new that does suggest it would cause cancer.

      And if you retreat to the position that something must create absolutely zero risk to be worth doing, then absolutely nothing is safe enough for you. Going out in the sun and breathing carry a risk of causing cancer.

      From our current understanding, there is absolutely no rational reason to believe that microwaves from cellphones/wifi give you cancer, in the same way that there's no reason to believe that touching wood fends off bad luck. People still swear blind that it does, but there's no scientific reason to think so.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    6. Re:Resonance by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      That's right - stay the heck out of the Amateur radio bands! We've got specially-resonant pitchforks ready, just in case. 8-) The 433 MHz ISM band is supposedly available in region 2 only, which does not include the US. Also, it's not listed in CFR Title 47, Part 18.

      There's an exception for Part 15 devices to use 433-434 MHz, but that's for shipping container ID devices only.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    7. Re:Resonance by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Not "no chance", but I'd put the odds about the same as the magical wizard Endocrenes appearing behind me and cursing my testicles with evil runes.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Resonance by sourICE · · Score: 1

      Now all I have to do is keep myself from evolving to a point where my mind is able to discern information in energy waves...

      Wow, what a headache that will be.

      *puts on tin foil cap*

    9. Re:Resonance by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      "the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting."

      Cut a grape into quarters and put one slice in the microwave for ten or twenty seconds. It will do something "interesting".

  15. I for one by atarione · · Score: 3, Funny

    welcome our new 12.5Gbps brain tumor inducing overlords

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  16. Sorry you didn't get the point by George_Ou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is comparing 4G performance at 150 Mbps using only 20 MHz of spectrum to to millimeter wave technology which uses tens of GHz for line-of-sight application for multi gigabit links. Then it suggest that the rest of the world is lagging because of this bogus comparison. OK, maybe it's not just US bashing, but it's bashing the rest of the world.

    1. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by jabithew · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're missing the point.

      We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.

      Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

      What exactly could be done to the headline to mollify you?

      Godless Communists in Europe Testing Unwholesome, Anti-Family Services

      This is not a criticism of America, though the comments make some still-valid criticisms of US telecoms services.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    2. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by George_Ou · · Score: 1

      The entry was written as rest of the world still struggling with pathetic 3G/4G hundred megabit speeds while "Europe" pushes ahead with 12.5 Gbps.

      There are multiple problems with this statement.
      1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.
      2. It's not a valid comparison of technologies.

      You're making it sound like I'm bashing Europe when I've said no such thing. Europe (along with the US and many other countries produces very good research. I didn't even mention godlessness and you don't even know who I am or what my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are to be making that type of insinuation.

    3. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Well, with that kind of grasp of satire at least we know for sure that you're American.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    4. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by Shamenaught · · Score: 1
      IMHO, it's link-baiting rather than bashing, and share George_Ou's call for quality reporting. Let me explain:
      1. Firstly, from a quality of reporting issue: This technology is in Europe? Readers in Europe are left thinking "Where in Europe? Why don't I have it?"
      2. Once you understand that the intended reader is a non-European, the link-baiting starts to show as what it is. Then, the headline reads "Someone who isn't us is testing something faster than what we have."
      3. Now, the above wouldn't be so bad if it were actually true. It'd be news, albeit news that left Europeans needing to read the article to find-out where in Europe it's being tested (Europe is a big place). The problem is that the title, whilst potentially being true, prays on people's assumptions of what wireless is. The "wireless" they talk of, millimeter-wave stuff, is a completely different wireless to mobile wireless networking. Thus, it's arguable the title is Link-bait.
      4. Going past the headline, they compare the mm-wave technology with 3G/4G. Anyone who understands the technologies, however, understands that these technologies are not interchangeable and that any mobile phone operating primarily on mm-wave technology would not be be viable. You'd need LOS to a mobile mast, for a start, so it wouldn't generally be usable in-doors.
      --
      mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
    5. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point he was making is that you said specifically that the headline was US bashing, but all the headline says is the some research is being conducted in Europe. You'd have to work very hard at being insecure and over-sensitive to read that as some kind of slight against America. From a purely pedantic standpoint, it's the article/summary that you should have denounced, the headline was entirely innocuous.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    6. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by mjbkinx · · Score: 1

      1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.

      It's EU funded and coordinated research. It should have been "EU is testing...", because Europe is a continent, but otherwise it's correct.

    7. Re:Sorry you didn't get the point by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's one of those AIs.

      Given the way things are going, it looks like the mental abilities of AIs and the average person will converge in a few years time :).

      --
  17. wrong link in article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    the correct link is http://www.ist-iphobac.org/, not http://www.iphobac-survey.org/

  18. Association with 3G misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The comparison with 3G/4G systems is misleading, as these terms denote wide-area cellular telephone networks. Our cellular links are mobile, work over long ranges, and do not require a line-of-sight path from transmitter to receiver. 60 GHz wireless links, by comparison, typically require highly directive antennas, ie. the transmitter radiates energy directly at the receiver in a narrow beam. This makes it more suitable for fixed point link, rather than mobile, at this stage of development. Also, 60 GHz wireless signals are highly attenuated as they pass through solid objects, hence the need for a line-of-sight path. So, while its true mm-wave communications offers unparalleled wireless data rates, the comparison with cellular networks is not necessarily a good one.

    1. Re:Association with 3G misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comparison comes from the fact that these are partly intended as links between 4G stations.

    2. Re:Association with 3G misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article doesn't make this distinction, and in any case, why compare the 4G stations to the links connecting them?

      Still apples and oranges.

  19. We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! by nten · · Score: 1

    One reasons the 60ghz(5mm) mentioned in TFA is so great is that it won't make it from the living room into the bedroom so you don't get interference when you use it to go from the ps3 to the wall mounted flatscreen.

    1mm(300ghz) is well into the water absorption band, to get out of it you'd need to get up around to 10 *micro*meter wave lengths. EHF for cellphones would require towers all over the place, the range wouldn't even be as good as wifi unless you jacked the power high enough that it would scare me to use, and even then I don't see it being any farther than a block given a clear LOS.

    Incidentally 3mm (100ghz) wavelength is what that "skin on fire" ray uses.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Incidentally 3mm (100ghz) wavelength is what that "skin on fire" ray uses.

      Wouldn't that be actually a good thing from the safety point of view? That would mean it has very bad depth penetration, and if it damages anything, it'll be the most easily replaceable part of the body. It's also one full of nerves, so you're likely to notice that something's wrong soon enough. Something that penetrates deeper could quietly cook the brain instead. While I'd certainly prefer neither, if I have to pick one, I'd certainly go with the former.

    2. Re:We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The advantages of skin are pretty clear- a barrier against the nasty outside world, but brains are still unproven.

      There are a lots of living things out there with skin but no brains.

      --
    3. Re:We'll Need towers on ever street-corner! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're getting what I mean.

      What I'm saying is that people fear radiation because it can cause damage that accumulates unnoticeably over a long time, until you suddenly realize you have cancer several months too late.

      A type of radiation that is tuned to trigger the pain receptors in the skin would be much safer because you'd notice it much faster and at lower intensities, and the damage would be done to something that quite easily and constantly regenerates.

  20. Pizza Delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great! I'll take the money I'm earning from La Casa Nostre Pizza Delivery and put it towards a suit that will let me stay online at all times. I'll be able to record and blog /everything/!

  21. Death of Cable by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    This technology could drive all the nails in the coffin lid for cable TV. At these download speeds one could download all of the programs for all of these channels in a minute or two. The only reason for further contact that day would be news updates. Of course we will need some type of hard drive arrangement that can record 12.5Gps..

  22. Environmentally friend? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    First of all, New technologies = new techno waste.
    Second, will the new technologies be more environment friendly for production and disposal?
    What about energy consumption?
    And finally, do the pros surpass cons?

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  23. indeed by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly pro-market, but it's easy to ruin things with simple dogma. A lot of business needs to be able to assume basic things are working to operate. If you spend all your time wrangling about sewer hookups for to your office and your power company is an unregulated free-market utility that can choose not to do business with you if you upset their TOS, you spend all your time on overhead and little time on business. The internet these days is basically a utility: if you want it to spur other economic development, businesses and entrepreneurs need to be able to assume it'll be there as a boring, reliable transit method that they don't have to spend more time worrying about. This is basically incompatible with the infrastructure operators, especially in areas where they're local monopolies or oligopolies, trying to maximize profit.

    More generally, and to simplify a bit there are two ways of operating in a market economy. One, you can produce a product or service that you think people will willingly pay money for, and then offer it for purchase in the marketplace. Two, you can attempt to gain control over some aspect of the marketplace itself, putting yourself in a position where you can skim some of the money off as it goes by, because people have no choice but to deal with you. The first is the good side of capitalism: entrepreneurs and individual freedom. The second is the bad side: monopolists, market manipulation, and so on.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:indeed by warsql · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly pro-market ... The internet these days is basically a utility

      This is the problem in a nutshell. Internet service is not provided by a free market. Government has create internet service provider utilities via cable and phone company competition restrictions. Only when we get real choice will the situation improve.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
    2. Re:indeed by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It seems like there's a bit of a natural monopoly on last-mile pipes, though. To minimize digging up of streets, we really don't want 15 cable companies running entirely separate networks to houses, but instead want one line. Sort of how power lines and water pipes are done, too.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  24. Zero to... by akeyes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zero to Capped in no time flat!

  25. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 1

    .......ups wrong technology.

    But anyway imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
    1. Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Yeah: I'm imagining opening the pantry door and the popcorn starts popping. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  26. Logarithmic relation between usefulness and speed by firmamentalfalcon · · Score: 1

    One of the boundary conditions of internet speed is the size of the material being sent over the wireless network. If all you have is small sound files, then you'll need to be sending over years of music to fully use the 12.5 Gbps. The usefulness of internet speed increases only logarithmically. There is almost as much use for 1000000 Gbps as 100 Gbps. Only a small portion of the people actually using the internet would see any difference between the 1000000 and 100 Gbps. Once you hit the critical value, which is like a few Gbps, most of the people on the world would be satisfied.

    Humans are the ultimate boundary conditions. We can only read so much and listen to so much in so much detail and see so many pixels. The best that the data can do is accurately represent these. Once the representation becomes so accurate that adding a few more Gb's of information would not allow a human to see the improvement of the file, then we hit the limit.

    Another major limit is time. We can only hope to live up to around 100 years old. Downloading 120 years worth of music would be meaningless then. There is a limit to everything and just increasing the wireless speed past the critical limit is almost useless.

  27. cooking brains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The technology (...) has commercial applications not just in telecommunications"

    I am quite sure it should be useful for cooking.
    Is anyone selling radiation hats?
     

  28. What "Europe"? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Editors, please be a bit more sensitive. There is no country "Europe", and most of us on the continent Europe do not want it to become a country.
    We are only stuck with some assholes that we did not vote for, that created a "government" that we can't really vote for, and that we explicitly can't vote not to exist in the first place.
    Americans who were stuck with an asshole President, should understand this. :)

    So don't say "Europe", as if it were a single country. It's like calling North-America a country, and thereby saying that the USA, Mexico and Canada are one single entity. You would not like that, would you? Well, we neither.

    Just name the country of the company, event or person. And use "Europe" only to describe things that relate to Germans, French, British, Russians, and so on, in the same manner, thereby being a continent-related issue.

    Thank you for being solidary, until we got rid of our oppressive governments ourselves. :)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:What "Europe"? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Editors, please be a bit more sensitive. There is no country "Europe", and most of us on the continent Europe do not want it to become a country We are only stuck with some assholes that we did not vote for, that created a "government" that we can't really vote for, and that we explicitly can't vote not to exist in the first place. Americans who were stuck with an asshole President, should understand this. :)

      We've understood it fine since at least the Civil War.

      (In case you're not familiar with the real issue: That's when the Several States found out, violently, that they couldn't leave the federation if they disagreed with its politics or the economic central planning that moved the money to New York and kept what's now "flyover country" in third-world status. Freeing slaves was never the target - it could have been done a LOT cheaper by buying them, as it was in the rest of the world - and the Emancipation Proclamation was tacked on near the end as a tactical move, though "freeing slaves" had been used as pro-war propaganda - like the "going after the WMD" stories about Iraq (though there really WERE slaves) - even in the period leading up to the conflict.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:What "Europe"? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      That's when the Several States found out, violently, that they couldn't leave the federation if they disagreed with its politics or the economic central planning that moved the money to New York and kept what's now "flyover country" in third-world status.

      "Flyover country" isn't, and hasn't been, in third-world status, and isn't the part of the country that tried to secede, anyway. And the principal policy that the Confederate States (their name for themselves, as opposed to the made-up poppycock label you've introduced) objected to was the anticipated abolition of slavery (an abolition which, ironically, was accelerated by the South's failed attempt at secession to avoid it.)

      Freeing slaves was never the target - it could have been done a LOT cheaper by buying them, as it was in the rest of the world - and the Emancipation Proclamation was tacked on near the end as a tactical move, though "freeing slaves" had been used as pro-war propaganda - like the "going after the WMD" stories about Iraq

      In the real world, unlike the fantasy you are describing, Lincoln won the Presidency largely by -- despite being against slavery -- being against any effort to "free the slaves" that would jeopardize the stability of the Union. Freeing the slaves was never claimed as a goal of the war by the Union, which makes sense when you consider that the Union included slave states, who were hardly interested in a war to "free the slaves".

      There was never any secret that the North's sole reason for war was that South launched a armed attempt at secession and the North opposed both the goal and the means. "Freeing the slaves" wasn't a cover for the real motivation, and it would have been a poor one since it would have had less support than the real motivation.

  29. Re:I don't care by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    You mean the prices where you live?

    Well, we got better prices. Partially because the EU bureaucrats made monopolies mostly a thing of the past (except for the owner of the last mile, who still has a monopoly, for which Germany actively has to pay fines).

    (I know that this is not yet totally true for other things like gas/power yet. But for mobile phones, it worked out pretty well so far. We can get nearly the latest phones including a 20 euro a month plan, with a flat rate, and actually get 200 euro or more payed up-front, when we make the contract! Now that is a good deal! ^^)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  30. IPHOBAC by ghostis · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fear of Anonymous Cowards is a serious issue. They should get help.

    --


    Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
  31. Enzyme kinetics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trivial physical chemistry, at least as you're presenting it, is not terribly good at predicting the effect of nonionizing radiation on enzyme kinetics, evidently. It's quite well established that low-frequency EM can interrupt melatonin synthesis (medline, bubba) and alteration of enzyme kinetics is at least one mechanism which looks viable for detection of / interference by low-energy radiation. I've also read some speculation on coupling to excitable membranes but I'm not sure I find that credible.

    1. Re:Enzyme kinetics by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm trivialising here, but that's my point. Any interesting effects from low-frequency EM require novel mechanisms that are still being looked for. It's the sort of process which requires "new chemistry" which isn't actually there yet. It's not something as simple as "resonant processes let the microwave do anything".

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  32. While we're at it: Folding. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ... alteration of enzyme kinetics ... looks viable for detection of / interference by low-energy radiation. ... [there's] speculation on coupling to excitable membranes ...

    Folding might be an issue, too, where a short-term exposure could have long-term effect.

    = = = =

    That said: The move to everything-spread-spectrum would help to reduce the ability of microwave photons to gang up by resonance, potentially increasing the threshold of exposure necessary for an effect (though simultaneously eliminating the ability for a tuned signal to miss a particular sensitive frequency so if there IS any effect once the exposure is high enough to provide the energy it's far more likely to occur).

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  33. 12.5 Gbps!! by hidave · · Score: 1

    Most of rural America has to live with 1.5 Mbps, assuming you can afford the $80/month. So Europe is close to being 12 THOUSANDS times faster. How nice ;) Oh, and for good measure, most of rural America also has no cable, cell phone, or DSL access either. I don't blame the providers, who obviously have a profit objective. In fact, I don't blame anybody. But I would appreciate a national push to get cable everywhere, or at least put up satellites that can provide 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload for a reasonable fee. That would enable much of America, which would like to telecommute, to actually do it from rural America. Having millions of Americans move out of cities and into rural America would relieve pressures on all population-density caused problems like traffic and crime.

    --
    Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
  34. I AM TESTING 37Kbs COPPER! The latest technology! by aqk · · Score: 0

    In a feeble attempt to "slow down the world" and stop this gigabyte madness, I have decided to organize a contest to see who can get the SLOWEST wired access.

    Mind you, very slow wireless may also be eligible for this distinguishing (or perhaps extinguishing) prize.
    At THIS MOMENT, our advanced telephone engineers, in cooperation with the government of Quebec, are laying down a vast network of corroded copper wire to see how we can stop the perverse modernization of our great Quebec, and Canadian society

    For results of an very promising initial experiment READ MY COPPER! and despair, o ye mighty!
    Take note! We are QUEBEC! WE ARE FULLY PREPARED AND READY TO JOIN THE THIRD WORLD!
    .

    --

    .
    - aqk
    F U /. illiterates.
  35. toyotabedzrock by toyotabedzrock · · Score: 1

    I personally don't want microwave transmiters all around me or next to my head thanks. This reminds me of the foot-o-scope. http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm