12ms -- for every single hop. Sure, the routers upstream have a better link than you so it will be less than 12 for those hops, but you still suffer a separate delay for every routers on the way.
No, it's not "12ms -- for every single hop." That just shows you don't understand how packet switched networks operate. Did you even try to think this through?
The comparison is between ADSL and FiOS. Those are "last mile" technologies. There's no reason to assume that the routers upstream would have any performance differences, based simply on which technology they used to connect subscribers. The only difference is between ADSL and FiOS, which is what I covered.
I'll just add that the video is on the downstream channel, where the difference between ADSL and FiOS is 12:25 mbps. That's a difference of about 0.5 ms in latency for large packets. I was talking about the upstream channel, where game inputs would be sent. These are the small packets, so still under 1 ms.
Your point being? ADSL provides on the order of 12 mbps downstream bandwidth, so the difference in serialization delay is less than 1 ms, even for large packets.
From Onlive's site: "OnLive recommends a wired 5 Mbps connection to the Internet..." They haven't released any technical info on their proprietary video compressor, so it's not clear where your numbers come from.
In any case, even if the full difference in serialization delay is considered (~12 ms), that is minor in comparison to the measurements.
Latency was also reduced still further simply due to the masses of bandwidth FiOS offers compared to bog standard ADSL: in our case, 25mbps.
No, it wasn't (at least not significantly). The difference in latency between a 1 mbps link (ADSL upstream) and a 25 mbps link (which is due to serialization delay) is about 12 ms for large (1500 byte) packets. Since the vast majority of packets sent in this sort of application would be small ones (having only to convey simple info like "button 1 pressed"), it would actually be well under a millisecond. Compared to the measured results, this is insignificant.
A cooler filled with beer sitting next to your chair is cheaper, faster, and doesn't require a specialized, dedicated refrigerator. And think of all the beer you could buy for the price of one robot (and if the robot were really cool, like Bender, he'd drink all your beer before he could deliver it).
Paul Nipkow
had filed a German patent application on his mechanical-scanning TV or Elektrisches Teleskop1
in 1884, in which he referred to Bildpunkte--literally picture points but now universally translated as pixels...Alfred Dinsdale had written the very first English book on Television in 1926, but instead of
picture element he had used there lots of other colorful language: a mosaic of selenium cells, a great number of small parts, thousands of little squares...
There's much more, but it suffices to say that Russell Kirsch is only a minor footnote in terms of the history of the pixel. He may have invented something, but it wasn't square pixels.
No doubt, someone colored in blocks on a sheet of graph paper to make an image before pixels were ever used in conjunction with an electronic device. And using square pixels on a computer connected raster scanned display is just common sense, not an invention - it makes the math simpler.
'Across Windows, Mac and Linux 93.1 percent of users clicked the button at least once over the course of a five-day period. In total the study reported that users clicked on the back button 66 times over the course of five days.
Now, I'm no statistician, but that seems to indicate that there are (66/93.1% =) 70.9 people who use Firefox. Probably less, since some users would have clicked more than once.
With digital phones, it's not necessarily signal strength (cell phone parlance = RSSI, Received Signal Strength Indication) you want to display. You want to include some measure of the signal/noise ratio, since that is a better indicator of a phone's ability to communicate.
And, in fact, that's what most cell phones do. For CDMA, it's usually some combination of Ec/I0 with signal strength, and for GSM it's some combo of reciprocal bit error rate combined with signal strength. Often time averaged and perhaps peak reading. So it's not just a simple "x dB RSSI = y bars" calculation. The combined metric is called SQE (Signal Quality Estimation).
How is this article's claim any different than the criticism that Obama's "oil spill" speech was too intellectual for most US citizens, because it was written at a 10th grade level? There's a reason that Homer Simpson is the US Everyman.
Encryption, per se, is not disallowed. What is prohibited is "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." A group of hams setting up a high powered 802.11 AP (which would be illegal for a non-ham to access) might use encryption, not for the purpose of obscuring meaning (it's not being done to hide anything from anyone), but simply for the purpose of restricting access to licensed hams. Likewise, a control link might be encrypted to disallow unauthorized control, not to hide the control operations which are actually being done. That would be perfectly legal, by a plain reading of the regulations. The regulations specifically state that with regard to telecommand of model aircraft, "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication."
But they have somehow decided that "Congress shall make no law..." somehow means that non-Congress (i.e. the states) are bound to the same constraint. Unlike the 2nd, the first doesn't advise that "the people" have any rights to be free from state religion, or free speech. The first advises rights of petition and assembly.
I think separation is good. I think free speech is a right. But neither is supported by the text. Free speech could be found in the 9th, but that one has always been ignored, along with the 10th.
Words mean things, and there's no way to avoid the qualifier "Congress shall..." without disingenuous rationalization.
Slashdot Mirror
just encourage people to pee in the pools.
No, it's not "12ms -- for every single hop." That just shows you don't understand how packet switched networks operate. Did you even try to think this through?
The comparison is between ADSL and FiOS. Those are "last mile" technologies. There's no reason to assume that the routers upstream would have any performance differences, based simply on which technology they used to connect subscribers. The only difference is between ADSL and FiOS, which is what I covered.
I'll just add that the video is on the downstream channel, where the difference between ADSL and FiOS is 12:25 mbps. That's a difference of about 0.5 ms in latency for large packets. I was talking about the upstream channel, where game inputs would be sent. These are the small packets, so still under 1 ms.
Your point being? ADSL provides on the order of 12 mbps downstream bandwidth, so the difference in serialization delay is less than 1 ms, even for large packets.
It doesn't work the way you think it works.
From Onlive's site: "OnLive recommends a wired 5 Mbps connection to the Internet..." They haven't released any technical info on their proprietary video compressor, so it's not clear where your numbers come from.
In any case, even if the full difference in serialization delay is considered (~12 ms), that is minor in comparison to the measurements.
Can you take the slashvertisement with you?
No, it wasn't (at least not significantly). The difference in latency between a 1 mbps link (ADSL upstream) and a 25 mbps link (which is due to serialization delay) is about 12 ms for large (1500 byte) packets. Since the vast majority of packets sent in this sort of application would be small ones (having only to convey simple info like "button 1 pressed"), it would actually be well under a millisecond. Compared to the measured results, this is insignificant.
Creativity is rotating through Eye of the Tiger, We Are the Champions, Rock and Roll, part 2 and We Will Rock You.
A cooler filled with beer sitting next to your chair is cheaper, faster, and doesn't require a specialized, dedicated refrigerator. And think of all the beer you could buy for the price of one robot (and if the robot were really cool, like Bender, he'd drink all your beer before he could deliver it).
...and the math for square wheels is so much more rational.
From "A Brief History of the Pixel":
There's much more, but it suffices to say that Russell Kirsch is only a minor footnote in terms of the history of the pixel. He may have invented something, but it wasn't square pixels. No doubt, someone colored in blocks on a sheet of graph paper to make an image before pixels were ever used in conjunction with an electronic device. And using square pixels on a computer connected raster scanned display is just common sense, not an invention - it makes the math simpler.
Someone forgot to credit the Onion for this article.
Really, square pixels are an invention? Meh. And he might want to credit Georges Seurat for his new direction.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
"AT&T better blast Owen Wilson into orbit to try to save face."
...or simply as a public service.
Now, I'm no statistician, but that seems to indicate that there are (66/93.1% =) 70.9 people who use Firefox. Probably less, since some users would have clicked more than once.
You didn't read the article, did you?
With digital phones, it's not necessarily signal strength (cell phone parlance = RSSI, Received Signal Strength Indication) you want to display. You want to include some measure of the signal/noise ratio, since that is a better indicator of a phone's ability to communicate.
And, in fact, that's what most cell phones do. For CDMA, it's usually some combination of Ec/I0 with signal strength, and for GSM it's some combo of reciprocal bit error rate combined with signal strength. Often time averaged and perhaps peak reading. So it's not just a simple "x dB RSSI = y bars" calculation. The combined metric is called SQE (Signal Quality Estimation).
Google is the new Apple
Apple is the new Microsoft
Microsoft is the new IBM
IBM is just old
How is this article's claim any different than the criticism that Obama's "oil spill" speech was too intellectual for most US citizens, because it was written at a 10th grade level? There's a reason that Homer Simpson is the US Everyman.
Encryption, per se, is not disallowed. What is prohibited is "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning." A group of hams setting up a high powered 802.11 AP (which would be illegal for a non-ham to access) might use encryption, not for the purpose of obscuring meaning (it's not being done to hide anything from anyone), but simply for the purpose of restricting access to licensed hams. Likewise, a control link might be encrypted to disallow unauthorized control, not to hide the control operations which are actually being done. That would be perfectly legal, by a plain reading of the regulations. The regulations specifically state that with regard to telecommand of model aircraft, "The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication."
In the US, typefaces cannot be copyrighted.
Text, the most widely used and open of all.
That's all they ever do. Then rename whatever software it runs "IOS." Cisco is a marketing company, not a technology one.
But they have somehow decided that "Congress shall make no law..." somehow means that non-Congress (i.e. the states) are bound to the same constraint. Unlike the 2nd, the first doesn't advise that "the people" have any rights to be free from state religion, or free speech. The first advises rights of petition and assembly.
I think separation is good. I think free speech is a right. But neither is supported by the text. Free speech could be found in the 9th, but that one has always been ignored, along with the 10th.
Words mean things, and there's no way to avoid the qualifier "Congress shall..." without disingenuous rationalization.
Ditto "Slaughter-House," "Wickard v. Filburn," and "Kelo." All bad law.