It's sad how network operators do not even know what their devices are capable of. The 14.4 Mbps category is a myth. The correct value is 14.0 Mbps. Yes, 14.4 is exactly 7.2 Mbps times 2, but it is still wrong.
That is not always possible for practical reasons, such as proprietary software that was used to find the results. Besides, submissions which describe a black box with the only value being supposedly correct simulation results will not be accepted anyways. Simulation is often simply a means to visualize and quantize results which are already expected from the theory developed by a publication. Simulation results prove a theory neither right nor wrong.
It is already common knowledge among researches that simulated results can not be trusted. A program is only as good as it is tested. Only for scientific programs, testing is not usually as trivial as with application software. For example, you may have to analyze a system statistically and verify that the simulation results match the expected statistics. The scientific value is in that analysis and simulation results verified against such an analysis.
While I welcome the idea of making the code used in scientific work public, I believe a much better reason to do so is that other researchers can improve on it. Of course, research is not always meant to be for the common good...
Slashdot Mirror
It's sad how network operators do not even know what their devices are capable of. The 14.4 Mbps category is a myth. The correct value is 14.0 Mbps. Yes, 14.4 is exactly 7.2 Mbps times 2, but it is still wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Speed_Downlink_Packet_Access#HSDPA_User_Equipment_.28UE.29_categories
That is not always possible for practical reasons, such as proprietary software that was used to find the results. Besides, submissions which describe a black box with the only value being supposedly correct simulation results will not be accepted anyways. Simulation is often simply a means to visualize and quantize results which are already expected from the theory developed by a publication. Simulation results prove a theory neither right nor wrong.
It is already common knowledge among researches that simulated results can not be trusted. A program is only as good as it is tested. Only for scientific programs, testing is not usually as trivial as with application software. For example, you may have to analyze a system statistically and verify that the simulation results match the expected statistics. The scientific value is in that analysis and simulation results verified against such an analysis. While I welcome the idea of making the code used in scientific work public, I believe a much better reason to do so is that other researchers can improve on it. Of course, research is not always meant to be for the common good...