The rules for extradition are determined by bilateral treaty, and some treaties have a phrase to the effect of what you say. The US & Australia agreed to something a little different. The treaty says that the parties agree to deliver to each other anyone charged or convicted of commiting any of a bunch of crimes listed in the treaty. I suspect that exchanging warez counts under one or more of the extraditable offenses.
There was at least one amendment to the treaty. It says what happens when the alleged crime does not take place in the requesting country (the US, in this case.) It says
If the offence has been committed outside the territory of the requesting State, extradition shall be granted if the laws in the requested State provide for the punishment of an offence committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances. If the laws in the requested State do not so provide, the executive authority of the requested State may, in its discretion, grant extradition.
So even if warez'ing isn't an offense in Australia, and even if distributing illegal copies abroad isn't an offense while you're sitting in Australia, this amendment seems to permit the extradition. The accused party's lawyers will find objections to raise, but the extradition request isn't unreasonable.
> then if all the phone companies change all their equipment and > everyone buys a new modem, then turbo codes would let us [reach] > nearly 112K without changing the power level
For the quarter-of-a-trillion dollars that would cost, we should demand 150kbps!:)
BTW, I think doubling the signal power buys you only another 3 kbps.
True--if you're talking about the whole telephone network, including the digital parts. Then something shy of 64kbps is the speed limit. But the "plain old telephone service" part of the line has a capacity that's a function of noise on the line.
Shannon's theorem says that, if the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough, you can squeeze as much information as you'd like into an arbitrarily narrow bandwidth.
The missing piece of information required to answer the question about modem speed is this: the signal-to-noise ratio on a typical POTS line is about 30 dB, or 1000:1. Plug that into the equation given above and you see that you can fit something in the neighborhood of 30 kbps on a phone line. If you want to do better, you have to have a quieter line, or you HAVE TO SHOUT--that is, increase the signal level.
My recollection is that 56k modems have to shout to get all the way up to 56k, and either the FCC or the phone company (I forget) won't let the modems yell. If they let your modem get too loud, your signal could leak into your neighbor's line, and they'd have to listen to your squawking. DSL modems, by the way, shout real loud.
In the fine print on Shannon's theorem, it says that you can approach the theoretical capacity so long as you perform sufficient processing on the signal. The processing can get to be hard as you approach the limit, though. That's why the turbo codes are still cool, a decade later. Even if they won't help your POTS modem go faster.
Slashdot Mirror
The rules for extradition are determined by bilateral treaty, and some treaties have a phrase to the effect of what you say. The US & Australia agreed to something a little different. The treaty says that the parties agree to deliver to each other anyone charged or convicted of commiting any of a bunch of crimes listed in the treaty. I suspect that exchanging warez counts under one or more of the extraditable offenses.
There was at least one amendment to the treaty. It says what happens when the alleged crime does not take place in the requesting country (the US, in this case.) It says
So even if warez'ing isn't an offense in Australia, and even if distributing illegal copies abroad isn't an offense while you're sitting in Australia, this amendment seems to permit the extradition. The accused party's lawyers will find objections to raise, but the extradition request isn't unreasonable.> then if all the phone companies change all their equipment and
:)
> everyone buys a new modem, then turbo codes would let us [reach]
> nearly 112K without changing the power level
For the quarter-of-a-trillion dollars that would cost, we should demand 150kbps!
BTW, I think doubling the signal power buys you only another 3 kbps.
> No. A POTS line has 64000bps of bandwidth
True--if you're talking about the whole telephone network, including the digital parts. Then something shy of 64kbps is the speed limit. But the "plain old telephone service" part of the line has a capacity that's a function of noise on the line.
Shannon's theorem says that, if the signal-to-noise ratio is high enough, you can squeeze as much information as you'd like into an arbitrarily narrow bandwidth.
The missing piece of information required to answer the question about modem speed is this: the signal-to-noise ratio on a typical POTS line is about 30 dB, or 1000:1. Plug that into the equation given above and you see that you can fit something in the neighborhood of 30 kbps on a phone line. If you want to do better, you have to have a quieter line, or you HAVE TO SHOUT--that is, increase the signal level.
My recollection is that 56k modems have to shout to get all the way up to 56k, and either the FCC or the phone company (I forget) won't let the modems yell. If they let your modem get too loud, your signal could leak into your neighbor's line, and they'd have to listen to your squawking. DSL modems, by the way, shout real loud.
In the fine print on Shannon's theorem, it says that you can approach the theoretical capacity so long as you perform sufficient processing on the signal. The processing can get to be hard as you approach the limit, though. That's why the turbo codes are still cool, a decade later. Even if they won't help your POTS modem go faster.