I'm not European, but find their date representation convention to be much more logical - 2011/03/10 sorts naturally. I often use the form 10Mar2011 to avoid any ambiguity. The American 3/10/2011 has no particular order, and makes no sense. (yes, I deliberately chose a date where the month and day can be ambiguous)
"Routers do. They can see a loss of connectivity and alter their routes accordingly."
It's anthropomorphizing to say "they see" a loss of connectivity. Routers don't have eyes or cameras. They do have mechanisms to detect the loss of connectivity, though.
"A redundant route doesn't do any good without the intelligence..."
Again, it's anthropomorphizing to attribute a change in routes to "intelligence." Routers aren't intelligent - they blindly follow a well defined set of rules. Order all routes by their defined costs/metrics, when a route goes away, use the next best one, etc.
To the OP, networks are often described in anthropomorphic terms because that's what what humans naturally understand. It's easier, quicker, and aids understanding to use such terms when explaining things to other humans. The same thing with computers - do you really think your computer understands what trash is, and what it means to empty it? OTOH, some cars think a door is a jar.
Re:Is it Twelvember yet?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 2
"As you're on the subject, toilet paper goes with the loose end on the outside, i.e. not against the wall."
Perhaps you'll get one on the real pi day, 22/7 (which is only valid when interpreted with the European convention) ~= 3.14. 3/14 ~= 0.214, which isn't anything even close to pi.
Oh, contraire. Trust is everything. Even if you trust a corporation not to directly misuse information they have on you, do you trust them to keep it safe? Or might they sell it to others without your knowledge, who you don't know whether to trust or not? Or trust them not to be hacked, and have your information fall into hands you definitely shouldn't trust?
Right. When you originally said "Orthogonal frequencies...do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered" which is completely incorrect in the context of radio interference.
Meh, no sense going further, not only don't you understand the difference between theory and practice, but you can't recognize or admit when you're wrong.
LOL. Obviously, when they're combined, they are part of the signal. Conversely, they are components of the Fourier transformed signal. You're missing the fact that in either case, they are correlated, defined as functions which start at 0 and which continue perfectly and indefinitely. You can do that for, say, OFDM, because all the components to be combined are locked to the same oscillator, so they stay in sync. (or, in the case of reception, the receiver is phase locked to the incoming signal).
In the real world (hello???), the interfering signal isn't locked against the desired signal, so they're not orthogonal. No oscillator is mathematically perfect. No amplifier/transmitter is mathematically perfect. No filter is mathematically perfect. No receiver is mathematically perfect. A 2 MHz signal, with it's alway present first harmonic which isn't shown by your math, will interfere quite easily with a desired 4 MHz one, although they would be orthogonal Fourier components if part of the same signal.
You need to get some real world experience, that book-learning isn't doing you any good. Mathematically, a 2 MHz signal is orthogonal to a 4 MHz one. Real world, you can't have either, and you will get interference.
In that sense, you're still wrong. Orthogonality in the sense of Fourier transforms applies to the components of a single signal - the frequency components are correlated. Orthogonality applies to the frequency components within the signal (they have a phase relationship, they're not scalar), not to frequencies themselves. When you're talking about 2 signals (desired and interference) which have no definite relationship, "Fourier orthogonality" doesn't apply.
"Orthogonal frequencies...do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered"
Frequencies aren't orthogonal (they're scalars), signals are. If you don't control both signals, you can't control orthogonality. One must also consider the dynamic range of the front end - if overloaded with a high powered signal, the frequency relationship doesn't matter. That calls for good bandpass and roofing filter design.
But, to your point, the latency (actually, queuing delay) of a minimal Ethernet packet at 10 gbps is ~51 ns at a minimum. Double, when you consider the return time, so a minimal trade would be on the order of 0.1 us plus processing time (that overclocked 5 GHz PC takes 0.2 ns per instruction cycle) on both ends (and add another 51 ns for the NIC to receive the frame in order to send it up a layer). And that only if you're within a few feet (~1 ns/foot) and on the same switch as the source data. So some sizeable fraction of a microsecond is a more realistic minimum for a select few who may have physical presence at the exchange. That's only 10000x difference from the BS in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
So, by your definition, Henry Ford is still involved with day-to-day operations of the Ford Motor Company?
You don't know what "rhetorical" means, do you?
The pseudonymous one, or Mark Stephens, who absconded with the name from Infoworld? The latter has no credibility.
Michael Swaine, an early Infoworld columnist, was better than any of them.
Whoosh....
The title and summary aren't worth reading, either. PCM? What's that undefined acronym? Pretty Crappy Marketing? Pulse Control Modulation memory? Huh?
I'm not European, but find their date representation convention to be much more logical - 2011/03/10 sorts naturally. I often use the form 10Mar2011 to avoid any ambiguity. The American 3/10/2011 has no particular order, and makes no sense. (yes, I deliberately chose a date where the month and day can be ambiguous)
"Routers do. They can see a loss of connectivity and alter their routes accordingly."
It's anthropomorphizing to say "they see" a loss of connectivity. Routers don't have eyes or cameras. They do have mechanisms to detect the loss of connectivity, though.
"A redundant route doesn't do any good without the intelligence..."
Again, it's anthropomorphizing to attribute a change in routes to "intelligence." Routers aren't intelligent - they blindly follow a well defined set of rules. Order all routes by their defined costs/metrics, when a route goes away, use the next best one, etc.
To the OP, networks are often described in anthropomorphic terms because that's what what humans naturally understand. It's easier, quicker, and aids understanding to use such terms when explaining things to other humans. The same thing with computers - do you really think your computer understands what trash is, and what it means to empty it? OTOH, some cars think a door is a jar.
"As you're on the subject, toilet paper goes with the loose end on the outside, i.e. not against the wall."
Not if you have a cat.
Perhaps you'll get one on the real pi day, 22/7 (which is only valid when interpreted with the European convention) ~= 3.14. 3/14 ~= 0.214, which isn't anything even close to pi.
Polonium? ITYM Pb.
they'll link them together with AX.25 or packet radio, at 300 bps.
Uh, the company is the people. I don't think a building would be interested in my personal info.
Oh, contraire. Trust is everything. Even if you trust a corporation not to directly misuse information they have on you, do you trust them to keep it safe? Or might they sell it to others without your knowledge, who you don't know whether to trust or not? Or trust them not to be hacked, and have your information fall into hands you definitely shouldn't trust?
Get new glasses.
site:foo.com is a whitelist
-site:foo.com is a blacklist
"Experts Exchange is the Charlie Sheen of IT Knowledge websites."
Smokin'?
"the unit would protect sensitive Australian Government and business information from espionage by the nation's foes."
Those darn Kiwis.
They're calling 7.1, 8.
Right. When you originally said "Orthogonal frequencies...do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered" which is completely incorrect in the context of radio interference.
Meh, no sense going further, not only don't you understand the difference between theory and practice, but you can't recognize or admit when you're wrong.
LOL. Obviously, when they're combined, they are part of the signal. Conversely, they are components of the Fourier transformed signal. You're missing the fact that in either case, they are correlated, defined as functions which start at 0 and which continue perfectly and indefinitely. You can do that for, say, OFDM, because all the components to be combined are locked to the same oscillator, so they stay in sync. (or, in the case of reception, the receiver is phase locked to the incoming signal).
In the real world (hello???), the interfering signal isn't locked against the desired signal, so they're not orthogonal. No oscillator is mathematically perfect. No amplifier/transmitter is mathematically perfect. No filter is mathematically perfect. No receiver is mathematically perfect. A 2 MHz signal, with it's alway present first harmonic which isn't shown by your math, will interfere quite easily with a desired 4 MHz one, although they would be orthogonal Fourier components if part of the same signal.
You need to get some real world experience, that book-learning isn't doing you any good. Mathematically, a 2 MHz signal is orthogonal to a 4 MHz one. Real world, you can't have either, and you will get interference.
In that sense, you're still wrong. Orthogonality in the sense of Fourier transforms applies to the components of a single signal - the frequency components are correlated. Orthogonality applies to the frequency components within the signal (they have a phase relationship, they're not scalar), not to frequencies themselves. When you're talking about 2 signals (desired and interference) which have no definite relationship, "Fourier orthogonality" doesn't apply.
"Orthogonal frequencies...do not interfere at all even when one is extremely high-powered"
Frequencies aren't orthogonal (they're scalars), signals are. If you don't control both signals, you can't control orthogonality. One must also consider the dynamic range of the front end - if overloaded with a high powered signal, the frequency relationship doesn't matter. That calls for good bandpass and roofing filter design.
Meh. The reliance on NAVSTAR GPS is why Russia is working to complete GLOSNOSS, Europe is deploying Galileo, and China is building COMPASS.
What goes around, comes around. (pun intended)
What you describe is essentially one of the earliest forms of memory, delay lines.
You don't have to guess. M = mega, m = milli. There is no ambiguity.
They skipped microseconds!
But, to your point, the latency (actually, queuing delay) of a minimal Ethernet packet at 10 gbps is ~51 ns at a minimum. Double, when you consider the return time, so a minimal trade would be on the order of 0.1 us plus processing time (that overclocked 5 GHz PC takes 0.2 ns per instruction cycle) on both ends (and add another 51 ns for the NIC to receive the frame in order to send it up a layer). And that only if you're within a few feet (~1 ns/foot) and on the same switch as the source data. So some sizeable fraction of a microsecond is a more realistic minimum for a select few who may have physical presence at the exchange. That's only 10000x difference from the BS in the article.