I been wanting a standard interface just for recharging. I hate buying new recharging equipment (desktop, cigarette lighter, etc.) every time I get a new phone. I also hate buying multiple versions of charging equipment for the multiple cell phones in my household.
Blockbuster doesn't edit. Walmart doesn't edit. The studios made the choice to edit. If you want NC-17 don't go to blockbuster or walmart. Otherwise its like complaing becaues your local Ford dealer doesn't sell Chevys.
The space that most folks have for a TV is constrained more by width than height. Most entertainment centers have a TV shelf that is taller than it is wide.
That means a 4:3 TV will show just as wide of a picture as a widescreen TV. It makes the most sence to get the biggest screen that will fit in your space.
"It seems to me that research and development in most industries is like this. That is, the profit from the few successes pays for the R&D on everything else."
I wouldn't equate movie making with R&D. Sure, there's some R&D in special effects, but those effects are reusable (like the R&D that went into QuakeIII and got reused in a bazillion games). They don't need to keep producing crap to find out what works. The R&D argument is further nullified by the fact that sequels generally get worse instead of better incomparison to the original movie.
I agree with your statement about marketing. I'd put a different spin on it though. Perhaps the movie guys wouldn't have to spend so much on marketing if they'd stick to making good movies. Witness My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
And of course the movie types don't refer to their products as failures. Those guys have the nation's largest egos.
"Almost all U.S. families live in areas where a high-speed Internet connection is available"
Come on. I find that highly unbelievable based on my awareness of the tech market and on personal experiences with lots of different families.
Ricochet used public spectrum in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum. You want to talk about spectrally efficient?
No, and I think you've missed the point. Spectally efficient != how much someone pays for spectrum. Spectrally efficient != how fast the throughput is. Spectrally efficient = most bang for the buck where bang = how many users you can serve while keeping the users satisfied enough to pay for the service and buck = how much it costs per users to provide the service.
Oh, an let's not forget the number one feature of 3G (damn the hype): voice users/sector. Can ricochet support 20-30 voice calls/sector/carrier while still providing data service? Didn't think so.
Richochet was a niche, not because the demand wasn't there, but it was a niche becuase it would never be able to serve a lot of people. And even if the users/sector numbers were there, the per-carrier numbers weren't. There's not enough spectrum to have 5-6 service providers out there (like the cellular industry has) all on different bands, all with multiple carriers serving a bazillion users with the stuff.
Ease up, bud. I'm sure ricochet was great for you. It just wasn't a high capacity (capacity = serving very, very large numbers of people) technology.
The only true 3G in the United States is Ricochet...which I used at a true 80-250kbps. However, clueless executives and a little company called Aerie Networks have done a remarkably good job of killing that off, and we'll probably never see it again.
Ricochet was not spectrally efficient. It could never serve more than a niche market (even if the demand wasn't so niche). That technology would never back it big simply because service providers wouldn't be able to serve large numbers of people (relative to what's happening with cellular networks) with it.
Too bad. The mesh design of Ricochet was a boon to rescue and police efforts in New York, since many microcell nodes can go down without debilitating the network. With 3G, lose a couple of cell towers and everyone's suddenly got curiously-shaped handheld vibrators instead of phones.
Not true. The network is not dehabilitated when a couple cells go down. Best case, some capacity is lost. Worst case, there is an outage in a small area.
The bitrate of 3G sucks if you happen to be doing anything except sitting less than a half-mile from the tower, too.
Again, not true. You can get the max rate at the cell edge. The fact that you won't is mostly a factor of other users using up the base station's power.
2.5G is just a stepping stone. The money that the service providers invest in it is low risk. Even if data service doesn't take off, they still benefit because 1xRTT virtually doubles their voice users/sector capacity. They are more than happy to have that no matter what happens with data. If data takes off, there are much better things already in the pipe.
Next, will come the real 3G. It will be called 1xEV-DO (1Xrtt EVolution - Data Only). It will be an overlay technology that will really rock. Basically, there will be one giant constant rate (!) pipe and each user will be given a slice of it based on how many other people want to get on, among other things. Realistically expect 100's of kbps when that comes out. Verizon is conducting a private trial of that technology this year.
That's an excellent observation. (I can say that because I design these 1xRTT networks for a living)
RLP does play havoc with TCP. Never fear though. The throughput reports are still accurate. And 153.6kbps isn't the maximum rate. 153.6kbps is the maximum (currently deployed) rate of the suplimental channel. There's another channel that all mobiles, voice or data, use; the fundamental channel. The fundamental channel gets 9.6kbps. So the max rate is 153.6 + 9.6 = 163.2kbps.
Anyway, your concern is valid, but all it really means is that the speeds would be better if TCP could get along better with wireless frame (or bit) error rates. Optimization of the TCP stack for a wireless environment is possible, but it would really need to be done on the sending and recieving end. Since most internet users are wireline, that probably won't happen except on sites intended for mobile users. Oh, and the standards groups are working on TCP stack recommendations for wireless applications. Expect speeds to go up about 20% for free when that happens.
Slashdot Mirror
I been wanting a standard interface just for recharging. I hate buying new recharging equipment (desktop, cigarette lighter, etc.) every time I get a new phone. I also hate buying multiple versions of charging equipment for the multiple cell phones in my household.
Blockbuster doesn't edit. Walmart doesn't edit. The studios made the choice to edit. If you want NC-17 don't go to blockbuster or walmart. Otherwise its like complaing becaues your local Ford dealer doesn't sell Chevys.
The space that most folks have for a TV is constrained more by width than height. Most entertainment centers have a TV shelf that is taller than it is wide. That means a 4:3 TV will show just as wide of a picture as a widescreen TV. It makes the most sence to get the biggest screen that will fit in your space.
"It seems to me that research and development in most industries is like this. That is, the profit from the few successes pays for the R&D on everything else." I wouldn't equate movie making with R&D. Sure, there's some R&D in special effects, but those effects are reusable (like the R&D that went into QuakeIII and got reused in a bazillion games). They don't need to keep producing crap to find out what works. The R&D argument is further nullified by the fact that sequels generally get worse instead of better incomparison to the original movie. I agree with your statement about marketing. I'd put a different spin on it though. Perhaps the movie guys wouldn't have to spend so much on marketing if they'd stick to making good movies. Witness My Big Fat Greek Wedding. And of course the movie types don't refer to their products as failures. Those guys have the nation's largest egos.
"Almost all U.S. families live in areas where a high-speed Internet connection is available" Come on. I find that highly unbelievable based on my awareness of the tech market and on personal experiences with lots of different families.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this
http://www.asciimation.co.nz/
Maybe earth could sport some new rings like Saturn?
Ricochet used public spectrum in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum. You want to talk about spectrally efficient? No, and I think you've missed the point. Spectally efficient != how much someone pays for spectrum. Spectrally efficient != how fast the throughput is. Spectrally efficient = most bang for the buck where bang = how many users you can serve while keeping the users satisfied enough to pay for the service and buck = how much it costs per users to provide the service. Oh, an let's not forget the number one feature of 3G (damn the hype): voice users/sector. Can ricochet support 20-30 voice calls/sector/carrier while still providing data service? Didn't think so. Richochet was a niche, not because the demand wasn't there, but it was a niche becuase it would never be able to serve a lot of people. And even if the users/sector numbers were there, the per-carrier numbers weren't. There's not enough spectrum to have 5-6 service providers out there (like the cellular industry has) all on different bands, all with multiple carriers serving a bazillion users with the stuff. Ease up, bud. I'm sure ricochet was great for you. It just wasn't a high capacity (capacity = serving very, very large numbers of people) technology.
The only true 3G in the United States is Ricochet...which I used at a true 80-250kbps. However, clueless executives and a little company called Aerie Networks have done a remarkably good job of killing that off, and we'll probably never see it again.
Ricochet was not spectrally efficient. It could never serve more than a niche market (even if the demand wasn't so niche). That technology would never back it big simply because service providers wouldn't be able to serve large numbers of people (relative to what's happening with cellular networks) with it.
Too bad. The mesh design of Ricochet was a boon to rescue and police efforts in New York, since many microcell nodes can go down without debilitating the network. With 3G, lose a couple of cell towers and everyone's suddenly got curiously-shaped handheld vibrators instead of phones.
Not true. The network is not dehabilitated when a couple cells go down. Best case, some capacity is lost. Worst case, there is an outage in a small area.
The bitrate of 3G sucks if you happen to be doing anything except sitting less than a half-mile from the tower, too.
Again, not true. You can get the max rate at the cell edge. The fact that you won't is mostly a factor of other users using up the base station's power.
2.5G is just a stepping stone. The money that the service providers invest in it is low risk. Even if data service doesn't take off, they still benefit because 1xRTT virtually doubles their voice users/sector capacity. They are more than happy to have that no matter what happens with data. If data takes off, there are much better things already in the pipe.
Next, will come the real 3G. It will be called 1xEV-DO (1Xrtt EVolution - Data Only). It will be an overlay technology that will really rock. Basically, there will be one giant constant rate (!) pipe and each user will be given a slice of it based on how many other people want to get on, among other things. Realistically expect 100's of kbps when that comes out. Verizon is conducting a private trial of that technology this year.
That's an excellent observation. (I can say that because I design these 1xRTT networks for a living) RLP does play havoc with TCP. Never fear though. The throughput reports are still accurate. And 153.6kbps isn't the maximum rate. 153.6kbps is the maximum (currently deployed) rate of the suplimental channel. There's another channel that all mobiles, voice or data, use; the fundamental channel. The fundamental channel gets 9.6kbps. So the max rate is 153.6 + 9.6 = 163.2kbps. Anyway, your concern is valid, but all it really means is that the speeds would be better if TCP could get along better with wireless frame (or bit) error rates. Optimization of the TCP stack for a wireless environment is possible, but it would really need to be done on the sending and recieving end. Since most internet users are wireline, that probably won't happen except on sites intended for mobile users. Oh, and the standards groups are working on TCP stack recommendations for wireless applications. Expect speeds to go up about 20% for free when that happens.