It's more likely to be related to the 'growth promoters' fed to cattle. That's a really bad idea.
Anyway, there are other things we can do. Phage is always there in our armoury, and unlike antibiotics, bacteria have little chance of out evolving it...
(For those not in the know, Phage is the name given to viruses that have coevolved with bacteria. The idea is that you hunt around for a virus that kills the bacteria and spray the viruses around and the bacteria is killed. It seems to work... the Russians use it sometimes, it's cheaper than antibiotics.Viruses mutate faster than bacteria can.)
However you make assumptions that new routing software for a mesh net wont EVER BE ABLE TO provide for a quick long distance transit.
Routing isn't the big problem, although it is somewhat a problem. The big screw case is called 'an ocean'.
Now there's several ways to go across oceans, mainly hugely expensive undersea cable and/or satellites. None of them are cheap, and nearly all of them are owned by governments or corporations; it would be quite difficult for individuals or groups to bridge these gaps.
I don't think the Bells care that much. Wi-Fi networks are a bit like having lots of small roads everywhere. I mean sure, you can probably drive all the way, or almost all the way across America without ever driving on a major toll road or freeway, but you probably wouldn't want to.
So, everyone ends up going on the backbones with their traffic at some point- very little web traffic is local on the internet.
In fact growth of wireless networks are positive for the Bells, for every installed wireless network, there is a need for more connectivity over their fibers.
Nah... I think you're greviously underestimating my inbox. My inbox and the web are of comparable size; ok, I exagerate slightly, but the search doesn't come back in less than 5 minutes.
In contrast, Google preindexes everything and comes back in under a second.
Yes, I've always wanted google for email. You know, a small program that finds all the words in my email and then instantly pops up the emails with particular words in.
I don't actually see the point in putting emails into different folders, if you have that feature.
GSM does use compression, but does not put the voice traffic into packets, they use fixed timeslots, of a fixed size.
GSM voice traffic doesn't use IP!
GSM phones use nailed up connections for their voice traffic whilst the call is up. They also have data channels which are used for control information, but the voice goes over the nailed up connections. They therefore can't use the statistical multiplexing that VOIP uses, and they can't run single duplex, because their voice bandwidth is connected at the beginning of the call and disconnected at the end.
It can be, but it isn't usually, ISDN voice calls aren't for example, most but not all landlines aren't (except if you are a long way from the office). Even when it is, you still have to leave both directions open I believe.
VOIP doubles capacity again, because they can usually run it half duplex and rely on statistical multiplexing. That's more difficult with traditional compression techniques.
Actually there are some physicists currently trying to build microscopic black holes.
They say there's no danger...;-)
[Actually there really is no danger- the energy from cosmic rays is so stupendously more than we can make in the lab- if making a dangerous blackhole were that easy- we'd be dead years ago. It turns out that microscopic blackholes are unstable due to hawking radiation, so that they never can grow big enough to swallow more than an atom or too, and that won't keep a hungry blackhole happy for long enough to avoid starvation!]
Ok, I've got this voice network set up, and I can handle 100,000 calls per hour. If I go to VOIP I can handle 300,000 calls per hour. You're arguing that that is not worth doing?
It's the statistical multiplexing that IP and VOIP provides for that allows the compression to work...
True, but no phone network is lightly loaded, except at 2:00 a.m. or so.
VOIP gives you a 4:1 compression or more anyway, so for any bandwidth you already have, you're better off converting it to VOIP, and bingo- no significant congestion! If you have no congestion on your data network, you have no significant latency. You don't always need fancy protocols. You then have spare bandwidth as well.
I also don't doubt that VoIP traffice over the internet is rising in the single digits per year.
VOIP as a whole is growing far faster than that. VOIP on the internet- I'm sorry I don't know.
Perhaps to the point where VoIP traffic is on par with the data traffic.
The whole point of VOIP is that you send voice as data, so... no.;-) Besides there's already more data than voice, so it's looking unlikely those two lines are ever going to cross again right now.
Voice uses circuits for a reason -- latency and jitter *must* be controlled or the conversation goes to hell.
True, however if the network is lightly loaded, IP introduces negligable latency and jitter. VOIP is already being used for long-distance telephone calls.
There is a limit to how long you can spend processing the data into and out of a packet before you screw up the timing.
True. However we are not talking about big packets. Normal telephone quality is only 64kb/s (56kb/s in the US). The reason they are going with VOIP is compression- you can compress the date down by a factor of perhaps 4 fairly easily; partly because you can compress the sound by that much quite quickly, but also because on most telephone conversations only one person talks at once. That's important in a wireless phone network.
If this were to materialize over the next three years,
The statistic I heard is that already 20% of all long distance calls are on VOIP. (They usually use private networks right now though.)
what can we expect of the internet backbone as a whole?
Not a lot actually. We passed the point where most traffic was data traffic a couple of years ago. The data traffic is doubling about every year. The voice traffic is going up by some single digit percentage every year. Therefore very soon, voice traffic will be completely inconsiderable part of the internet.
Yeah, and there's people that will argue that 2.450000 Ghz is a completely different frequency to 2.450001 Ghz. Well, it's different... completely different? It has similar transmission properties.
But that's not the point, the frequency isn't that different from its absorption characteristics. We're talking about comparing absorption; the absorption from rain isn't that bad for WiFi; and if anything the absorption is worse at 10-18 ghz than 2.45 ghz.
I'll be really impressed when we see more complex
apendages, like hands, feet, and, or course, heads.
Oh yeah, that'll work, romantic dinner for two, sparkling conversation, gets all hot and heavy, she undoes your trousers and "It's a hand! Get away from me you FREAK!";-)
My understanding from the people who have actually tried it is that the attenuation to the signal is pretty minor- it's about the same as you get with satellite TV in fact- the frequency is pretty close anyway (as far as that goes.) Even in torrential downpours you still get connectivity, maybe some reduction in rate.
Re:Why is the U.S. so far behind.....
on
Wireless Wales
·
· Score: 2
It truly isn't. This is 10 square miles in the middle of a country. Only 50% of the UK is in range of broadband, and only about 1 million homes or so actually have it. The percentages are probably even lower for Wales.
Seriously, if you want to you could probably set up your own wireless network. It's not *that* difficult.
Re:One question...
on
Wireless Wales
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, but I worked out, with a contention ratio of 50:1, providing 576kb/s to each user, each channel can handle 286 users; it's surprisingly high really. (Assuming you get a reasonably realistic 3.3Mb/s throughput on each channel, YMMV of course).
And you can have 3 channels, and/or multiple transmitters on the same channels (widely spaced using directional antennas) those tricks would multiply up the capacity further.
By ADSL standards the capacity is huge.
Of course each wireless node can probably only handle about 15 nodes on it, depending on the equipment you plug in, but then you network the nodes together.
Actually, you should never automatically assume that doctors actually know what they are doing. They usually don't. There's lots of treatments that they no longer do when somebody actually measured whether it works or not, and there's plenty of treatments they haven't checked yet;-)
I also consider it interesting that they missed out the treatment that works better than splints- exercise!
Wonder why doctors would ever do a study that is likely to show that an expensive treatment involving lots of doctors is better than one that involves hardly any, or only physiotherapists. Hmmm. Tricky.
Garbage. Don't believe the hype. Where are banks being robbed? Where are spammers using other people's networks? (hint: whatever you've read, there's not been a single case so far, there probably will be eventually, but there hasn't yet been.).
How is Dartmouth going to deal with tightening down security? I know of people that drove down through a city with a laptop and pringles cans and picked up alot of wireless networks (including a state lottery wireless network). So that would be the biggest concern for me.
There's plenty of technologies out there that can lock down a network. I set up a network that used VPN software. Anyone could connect to the network. Wouldn't do you any good if you didn't have a password though.
I would rather be wired and go gigabyte
Gigabyte? Not gigabit? Gigabyte has not been deployed anywhere as far as I know. You can actually buy wireless networks. Gigabit has huge issues, the range is in feet, unless you go fibered, and that's expensive still, more than wireless.
than go wireless and be stuck at speeds less than 100 megabytes. Wireless is nice, but it is also more expensive than staying wired.
The wireless cards are currently about twice the price, but NICs and hubs are one of the cheaper components in a system, and they're coming down rapidly.
Ok, call it what you want. It's a cell membrane or something.
2. A cell would not survive if its membrane didn't allow proteins to enter
True, I said "tend not to" but you know what I meant. They let proteins in in quite controlled ways, and hormones and such like. Basically each cell has it's very own firewall;-) But the fact remains, getting DNA or RNA proteins successfully into the cell nucleus isn't all that easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, there are other things we can do. Phage is always there in our armoury, and unlike antibiotics, bacteria have little chance of out evolving it...
(For those not in the know, Phage is the name given to viruses that have coevolved with bacteria. The idea is that you hunt around for a virus that kills the bacteria and spray the viruses around and the bacteria is killed. It seems to work... the Russians use it sometimes, it's cheaper than antibiotics.Viruses mutate faster than bacteria can.)
Routing isn't the big problem, although it is somewhat a problem. The big screw case is called 'an ocean'.
Now there's several ways to go across oceans, mainly hugely expensive undersea cable and/or satellites. None of them are cheap, and nearly all of them are owned by governments or corporations; it would be quite difficult for individuals or groups to bridge these gaps.
So, everyone ends up going on the backbones with their traffic at some point- very little web traffic is local on the internet.
In fact growth of wireless networks are positive for the Bells, for every installed wireless network, there is a need for more connectivity over their fibers.
I'll take a tonne. When can you deliver?
In contrast, Google preindexes everything and comes back in under a second.
I don't actually see the point in putting emails into different folders, if you have that feature.
GSM voice traffic doesn't use IP!
GSM phones use nailed up connections for their voice traffic whilst the call is up. They also have data channels which are used for control information, but the voice goes over the nailed up connections. They therefore can't use the statistical multiplexing that VOIP uses, and they can't run single duplex, because their voice bandwidth is connected at the beginning of the call and disconnected at the end.
It can be, but it isn't usually, ISDN voice calls aren't for example, most but not all landlines aren't (except if you are a long way from the office). Even when it is, you still have to leave both directions open I believe.
VOIP doubles capacity again, because they can usually run it half duplex and rely on statistical multiplexing. That's more difficult with traditional compression techniques.
They say there's no danger... ;-)
[Actually there really is no danger- the energy from cosmic rays is so stupendously more than we can make in the lab- if making a dangerous blackhole were that easy- we'd be dead years ago. It turns out that microscopic blackholes are unstable due to hawking radiation, so that they never can grow big enough to swallow more than an atom or too, and that won't keep a hungry blackhole happy for long enough to avoid starvation!]
It's the statistical multiplexing that IP and VOIP provides for that allows the compression to work...
VOIP gives you a 4:1 compression or more anyway, so for any bandwidth you already have, you're better off converting it to VOIP, and bingo- no significant congestion! If you have no congestion on your data network, you have no significant latency. You don't always need fancy protocols. You then have spare bandwidth as well.
VOIP as a whole is growing far faster than that. VOIP on the internet- I'm sorry I don't know.
Perhaps to the point where VoIP traffic is on par with the data traffic.
The whole point of VOIP is that you send voice as data, so... no. ;-) Besides there's already more data than voice, so it's looking unlikely those two lines are ever going to cross again right now.
True, however if the network is lightly loaded, IP introduces negligable latency and jitter. VOIP is already being used for long-distance telephone calls.
There is a limit to how long you can spend processing the data into and out of a packet before you screw up the timing.
True. However we are not talking about big packets. Normal telephone quality is only 64kb/s (56kb/s in the US). The reason they are going with VOIP is compression- you can compress the date down by a factor of perhaps 4 fairly easily; partly because you can compress the sound by that much quite quickly, but also because on most telephone conversations only one person talks at once. That's important in a wireless phone network.
The statistic I heard is that already 20% of all long distance calls are on VOIP. (They usually use private networks right now though.)
what can we expect of the internet backbone as a whole?
Not a lot actually. We passed the point where most traffic was data traffic a couple of years ago. The data traffic is doubling about every year. The voice traffic is going up by some single digit percentage every year. Therefore very soon, voice traffic will be completely inconsiderable part of the internet.
Exactly.
Yeah, and there's people that will argue that 2.450000 Ghz is a completely different frequency to 2.450001 Ghz. Well, it's different... completely different? It has similar transmission properties. But that's not the point, the frequency isn't that different from its absorption characteristics. We're talking about comparing absorption; the absorption from rain isn't that bad for WiFi; and if anything the absorption is worse at 10-18 ghz than 2.45 ghz.
Oh yeah, that'll work, romantic dinner for two, sparkling conversation, gets all hot and heavy, she undoes your trousers and "It's a hand! Get away from me you FREAK!" ;-)
My understanding from the people who have actually tried it is that the attenuation to the signal is pretty minor- it's about the same as you get with satellite TV in fact- the frequency is pretty close anyway (as far as that goes.) Even in torrential downpours you still get connectivity, maybe some reduction in rate.
Seriously, if you want to you could probably set up your own wireless network. It's not *that* difficult.
And you can have 3 channels, and/or multiple transmitters on the same channels (widely spaced using directional antennas) those tricks would multiply up the capacity further.
By ADSL standards the capacity is huge.
Of course each wireless node can probably only handle about 15 nodes on it, depending on the equipment you plug in, but then you network the nodes together.
Add in some viagara secretion to the patch of skin for good measure, you get an erection and it lights up! ;-)
Or even better- melatonatan! You get an all-over tan and a permanent erection! Isn't technology wonderful ;-)
I also consider it interesting that they missed out the treatment that works better than splints- exercise!
Wonder why doctors would ever do a study that is likely to show that an expensive treatment involving lots of doctors is better than one that involves hardly any, or only physiotherapists. Hmmm. Tricky.
We're talking about VPN (i.e. IPSEC) here, not WEP- I turned WEP off completely in fact, it's junk. You seem to be getting the two confused.
Garbage. Don't believe the hype. Where are banks being robbed? Where are spammers using other people's networks? (hint: whatever you've read, there's not been a single case so far, there probably will be eventually, but there hasn't yet been.).
How is Dartmouth going to deal with tightening down security? I know of people that drove down through a city with a laptop and pringles cans and picked up alot of wireless networks (including a state lottery wireless network). So that would be the biggest concern for me.
There's plenty of technologies out there that can lock down a network. I set up a network that used VPN software. Anyone could connect to the network. Wouldn't do you any good if you didn't have a password though.
I would rather be wired and go gigabyte
Gigabyte? Not gigabit? Gigabyte has not been deployed anywhere as far as I know. You can actually buy wireless networks. Gigabit has huge issues, the range is in feet, unless you go fibered, and that's expensive still, more than wireless.
than go wireless and be stuck at speeds less than 100 megabytes. Wireless is nice, but it is also more expensive than staying wired.
The wireless cards are currently about twice the price, but NICs and hubs are one of the cheaper components in a system, and they're coming down rapidly.
Ok, call it what you want. It's a cell membrane or something.
2. A cell would not survive if its membrane didn't allow proteins to enter
True, I said "tend not to" but you know what I meant. They let proteins in in quite controlled ways, and hormones and such like. Basically each cell has it's very own firewall ;-) But the fact remains, getting DNA or RNA proteins successfully into the cell nucleus isn't all that easy.