Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Communications Hardware

Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless 134

Posted by kdawson
from the not-to-be-confused-with-iphone-hack dept.
Lorien_the_first_one brings word that in Europe, a breakthrough for post-4G communications has been announced. A public-private consortium known as IPHOBAC has been developing new communications technology that is near commercialization now. Quoting: "With much of the mobile world yet to migrate to 3G mobile communications, let alone 4G, European researchers are already working on a new technology able to deliver data wirelessly up to 12.5Gb/s. The technology — known as 'millimeter-wave' or microwave photonics — has commercial applications not just in telecommunications (access and in-house networks) but also in instrumentation, radar, security, radio astronomy and other fields."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

Comments Filter:
  • fp (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:02AM (#27207807)

    Im already using it. Its awesome.

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:13AM (#27207867)

    When we look at how far behind the American wireless industry is compared to the overseas systems, it's not always correct to simply look at the current status. It's much more important to look at the growth over time, because it is only when you do that do you realize that the American system is keeping pace with European and Asian cellular systems.

    Yes, at any particular moment in time the American system may seem far behind, but at some point we do upgrade to the latest and greatest. It just takes a lot more time to decide which version of the latest and greatest we will implement.

    So it's much more like taking an elevator to go from one floor to another here in the US. We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

    • by Jurily (900488) <jurily&gmail,com> on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:22AM (#27207907)

      We don't bother with every individual step in between and we get to the same place as the stair-climbers eventually too.

      Meanwhile, Japanese are upset because they're getting throttled to 900 Gb upload a month [slashdot.org]. Awful slow elevator, that. Notice how this was 8 months ago.

    • by rolfwind (528248) on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:32AM (#27207955)

      Your analogy would make more sense if America were making big leaps every few years in communication tech. However, just looking at the internet alone, so many people are still left with dial-up and will be there indefinitely while others here have Verizon Fios, the other side of the residential spectrum. Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds. Hell, just look at the gauge of wire for electricity that get to the super high % amount of population except the most, most remote, and also being able to provide telephone service for those same people too - and then tell me laying fiber optic is too expensive.

      The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following). Suddenly Verizon felt threatened. But otherwise they stayed slothful, providing as little service as possible while extracting the greatest price. They only moved when they felt threatened (how Verizon shat itself and went to court when Philadelphia proposed ubiquitous wireless internet). It seems that way with many of the monopolies. Hell, even regular old cellular service is abysmal in this country once you go past the population centers of the east and west coast. Nevermind cellular data service.

      Which is too bad. So much of the internet is really hampered by the traditional view of it being on the desktop. In a stationary place. The notebook boom coupled with WiFi spots moved to alleviate that but it really isn't on the go yet. The iPhone was probably the first mainstream product but service is still very expensive and no matter what you choose, pretty slow. Just as the internet was the killer app of the last 20 years, changing how we live; cheap, relatively speedy, ubiquitous wireless internet would probably be the next killer app the next 20 years.

      • by wisty (1335733) on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:56AM (#27208039)

        Too bad if you live in Australia. :(

      • by penix1 (722987)

        The problem as I see it with all these "they are faster than us" studies is the assumption that customers want the more expensive, faster solution in rural areas. I live in a rural state and can tell you that most here don't give a shit about speed and look more at the price because they tend to be poorer than the city dwellers. You can have a service that offers faster than light speed but if it costs an arm, leg and your first born, then people won't bite. Add to that the fact that most rural America sees

        • Maybe an arm, a leg, and the second born child? Hey, the ISP might be willing to barter!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ion.simon.c (1183967)

          Add to that the fact that most rural America sees a higher price because it is ... usually dominated by a single monopoly ... and there is your reason uptake is slow out here in the boonies.

          This is the PP's point. :)

          • by penix1 (722987)

            Sort of....My point added to PP's was that rural people tend to be poorer overall. They also tend to have more of an outside life especially in agricultural areas and have little online usage. This is a generalization based on where I live in WV and totally unsupported with data but is what I see when I look out the window...;-)

      • by maxume (22995)

        Population density is the wrong measure. Customers per infrastructure dollar is probably a lot closer to being correct. If the rural population of a relatively small country is limited, the country will appear to have a low population density, but most of the infrastructure will serve people living at high densities. The U.S. happens to have a significant number of people living at a low population density, so there are lots of areas where there is a lot of infrastructure per customer.

        Still, the lightly reg

      • Now, the old argument is population density one, but I feel that is a dead horse in many ways, with communities in Europe (Sweden) with comparable or lower density getting top notch speeds.

        It's not just about population density... it's also about the sheer size of some of our low-density areas. The United States has areas twice the size of the UK with half the population density. Sure, if we were on an island and only had this small area to run wire all over the place, we would, but America is much bigger than the UK if you haven't noticed. It takes a longass time to get places wired, and certain areas have more priority than others in the race to high speed internet.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by hobbit (5915)

          Sure, if we were on an island

          You are on an island. We have several countries on ours too :)

      • The only time I saw Verizon move in my area to provide better service the last 10 years (Fios) was when comcast started offering voip phone service (they already have a strong cable internet following).

        Unfortunately, that's anecdotal evidence. Mine refutes that, but it's just as invalid as it's anecdotal as well

        On my side of things, I live in a small suburb. We're somewhat near a Verizon office (not in town, but not too far away). Yet Verizon was pretty quick to wire us for DSL and later Fios; and DSL w

    • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday March 16, 2009 @06:12AM (#27208337) Homepage Journal
      Horse shit. Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did? This seems to be what you are suggesting. Fact is, the US has fallen behind because our "business leaders" are to busy having huge circle jerks, trying to figure out how to use modern technology to rip off the consumer. Witness the number of lawsuits filed to prevent towns and counties from implementing internet service in areas that no corporation was interested in supplying service anyway. Yes, look at how far behind we are today. And, think about how far behind we'll be in another ten years. Then, write you congressman to make things happen, and stop whining out your excuses for substandard performance on America's part.
      • by Trepidity (597)

        I'm fairly pro-market, but it's easy to ruin things with simple dogma. A lot of business needs to be able to assume basic things are working to operate. If you spend all your time wrangling about sewer hookups for to your office and your power company is an unregulated free-market utility that can choose not to do business with you if you upset their TOS, you spend all your time on overhead and little time on business. The internet these days is basically a utility: if you want it to spur other economic dev

        • by warsql (878659)

          I'm fairly pro-market ... The internet these days is basically a utility

          This is the problem in a nutshell. Internet service is not provided by a free market. Government has create internet service provider utilities via cable and phone company competition restrictions. Only when we get real choice will the situation improve.

          • by Trepidity (597)

            It seems like there's a bit of a natural monopoly on last-mile pipes, though. To minimize digging up of streets, we really don't want 15 cable companies running entirely separate networks to houses, but instead want one line. Sort of how power lines and water pipes are done, too.

      • Did Europe have internet twenty years before the United States did?

        Well, France had a widespread online service with interactive features, email, etc., long before the United States had similar penetration of similar technology, much less on a shared network, though it wasn't "the internet".

  • Fry (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pmarini (989354)
    and how many of those radiowaves are going to fry our brains ? let me see:
    - 10 thousands satellites beaming down their TV programmes and GPS coordinates
    - 1 thousand TV stations beaming up their programmes (that's very high power)
    - 500 millions of cordless phone handsets (frequencies anyone ?)
    - 100 millions cordless keyboards and mice (ranging from 40MHz to 2.4GHz)
    - 2 billions cellphones and millions of related cellular-comms-towers
    - billions of wi-fi connections from portable phones, laptops, VoIP, ..
    • Re:Fry (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:25AM (#27207923) Homepage Journal
      Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Photons are dangerous, ask Schroedinger's cat !
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Most of us bathe...

        Speak for yourself, mate.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Most of us bathe...

          Speak for yourself, mate.

          Good to see the English (1) are represented on slashdot.

          1) By English, I mean English.

          The Scotts, Welsh, North Irish, Cornish, Manx, Jersey islanders etc - all know what a shower is.

          Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, I love the smell of reverse racism in the morning (or any time of day really).

          • by jabithew (1340853)

            The Isle of Man, Jersey Islands etc. are not in the United Kingdom.

            Also, when comparing the cleanliness of of different regions of the UK, I invite you to consider this link [bbc.co.uk].

            Guess where I live :P.

            • I checked out the link. The data suggests to me that the men of London might be a bunch of poofs who are full of shit, but the men of New Castle got up early enough to take a dump before boarding the train. Glad I don't ride the trains in London, with all the poofs passing gas!
              • by jabithew (1340853)

                Yeah, washing your hands after taking a dump is for queers!

                • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

                  by Barsteward (969998)
                  there's no point washing your hands, you've already cleaned your hands by pulling up your pants and then dried them by tucking in yur shirt
      • Re:Fry (Score:5, Informative)

        by sakdoctor (1087155) on Monday March 16, 2009 @04:56AM (#27208035) Homepage

        You're talking crap.

        Whilst IR photons have a higher energy than microwaves, so do visible light photons.

        On the other hand, opacity and absorbtion of various human tissues, is a complex relationship with wavelength.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BlueParrot (965239)

        Most of us bathe in kilowatts of infra red radiation at shorter wavelengths (and higher photon energy) than microwaves. I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

        It is all about how people perceive risks and fail to consider them rationally. A bit of a similar example is how a number of people are up in arms about the rates of violent crime, and are willing to sacrifice their liberties and privacy if the government merely suggests it might perhaps help, yet consider the prospect o

        • by hitmark (640295)

          If only Gutenberg had known what a weapon he was creating...

        • by mosb1000 (710161)
          "yet consider the prospect of biking to work unthinkable, despite the benefits it would grant them in terms of reduced risks of heart diseases and stroke."

          I think you have failed to include the increased risk of being hit by a car. It only has to happen to you once, and you will probably not be willing to ever ride to work again, even if you weren't injured. Heart disease it distant and uncertain, any kind of exercise can prevent it. Getting hit by a car while you're riding you bike is a real wake-up call
      • Resonance (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's not just energy, but resonance as well. High energy photons destroy your DNA and cells by brute force. Lower frequency photons do it by resonating with your DNA and cells and shaking them to bits. It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.
        • Re:Resonance (Score:5, Informative)

          by Sockatume (732728) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:57AM (#27208277)
          Actually, resonant processes are the ones that depend absolutely upon the photon energy, and the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting. Microwaves can do work by a nonresonant, thermal process, but that's it.

          A resonant process is one in which the photon has the right energy to trigger a particular transition. Ionising radiation (UV, x-rays, etc.) works by a resonant process, and depends on the quantum of radiation having enough energy to eject an electron from the molecule. As you go down in energy from there, you have enough energy per photon to resonantly electronically excite molecules (visual light, used in the eyes to detect light) or vibrationally excite (IR), or down at the bottom, to rotationally (microwave), and then translationally excite molecules.

          Correspondingly, it gets harder and harder to cause any chemistry with those photons. It's trivial to break up a molecule by shifting its electrons around or ejecting them altogether, or to a lesser extent it's possible to chop something up by exciting a particular molecular stretching vibration such that the bond(s) dissociate(s). However it's a serious challenge to cleave a bond with a rotational excitation alone.

          So, how could a microwave do any chemistry, and thus damage, to your tissues? It's a simple thermal process. When you rotationally excite a molecule, in the gas phase, the molecule, or part of it, changes its rotational motion in some way. There are couplings between rotational and vibrational motions, and upwards to electronic excitations. In the solution or solid phase, there are also couplings to the translational motion of the molecules, meaning that ultimately the energy from the microwave can end up speeding up the molecule's motion, which is plain old heating.

          So the energy you dump in with the microwaves becomes "thermalised", spreading over the whole range of states evenly, with a pretty huge chunk of it going into heating up the material. That heat lets you do old-fashioned collision-activated chemistry. What the anti-EM movement don't want you to think about is that this thermal process is entirely dependent on your exposure. It's like standing next to a furnace. A foot away, you're toast. Six feet away, you're warm. One hundred feet away, you don't know it exists.

          In summary, it is not possible for radio to cause you thermal damage because the exposure is simply too low. No non-thermal, resonant process for damage has been shown to exist, and trivial physical chemistry makes it clear that one probably never will be found.
          • by mosb1000 (710161)
            "the energy of a microwave photon is too low to do anything interesting."

            Cut a grape into quarters and put one slice in the microwave for ten or twenty seconds. It will do something "interesting".
        • by amorsen (7485)

          It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz, as that is the frequency at which water molecules, including those in your body, resonate.

          Water doesn't have a sharp absorption peak, and 2.4GHz is in fact picked to NOT absorb too efficiently. At some frequencies water would absorb the radiation so well that only the outermost layer of food would be heated.

        • by Gordonjcp (186804)

          It's the reason why a microwave oven is tuned to 2.4GHz

          No, it's not. You can use just about any frequency for RF heating. The reason 2.4GHz is used is because it's cheap and easy to make cavity magnetrons that produce a hell of a lot of power in a compact package, and 2.4GHz has a very wide ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical) band where no licence is required. They need quite a wide band, because the magnetrons aren't very stable and drift a lot.

          You could make a UHF "microwave" oven using the 433MH

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by famebait (450028)

        I don't see how photons of lower energy could be causing us problems.

        And so the question inevitably arises:
        Do you in fact know enough about photons and radiation for your failure to see any problems to imply with any degree of probability that there are no problem problem?
        Or should our conclusion be simply "no, you don't, do you?".

        Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

        • Re:Fry (Score:5, Informative)

          by jschen (1249578) on Monday March 16, 2009 @08:39AM (#27209279)

          Your implicit assumption that higher energy photons are universally more dangerous than lower energy photons would seem to speak for the latter.

          This has been experimentally verified in experiments on the photoelectric effect [wikipedia.org]. Indeed, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" (emphasis mine; notice that Einstein did not win the prize "because of relativity", as many would assume). Below a certain energy level per photon, nothing happens no matter how intense the light. Above the threshold, something happens (with the rate dependent on the intensity of the light).

          Of course, thermal warming can also happen. In recent years, microwave-assisted organic synthesis was a big fad. But the most careful studies have demonstrated that the so-called "microwave effect" is simple thermal heating in all known cases, and despite theoretical explanations for why a non-thermal microwave effect might exist (going so far as to predict the types of reactions for which the largest effect might be found) and papers claiming the discovery of such effects, effects seen to date are purely thermal. See this J Org Chem paper [acs.org]. Any effect we see from a cell phone in the pocket would appear to be the same effect as simply warming our thigh a miniscule bit.

    • These systems typically have short range in air and thus require many antennas closely spaced. The consequence is that distances are smaller and therefore, due to the inverse square law, the power needed at each antenna is much smaller and the average power in the environment will be much smaller.

    • by aapold (753705)

      Dear sir:

      I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms your implication that there is a health hazard from using 4G communication devices. Many of my friends use them and only a few have had their heads explode.

      Sincerely, Brig. Gen. Brian O'Connell (Scanner). P.S. And don't call me baby

    • by maxume (22995)

      What are you, a vampire?

      Ah, the sun, the sun, it is irradiating me!

  • They'll ruin it by bolting Siebel onto it like Telstra here in Australia with NextG!
    • by Cyanara (708075)
      Being forced to look at Telstra Wireless as my only option for "broadband", I gotta ask, what is Siebel, and why is it bad?
      • by firephox (1501619)
        Siebel is the new system, they're shutting down the old system before the new one is up and most people are untrained! The 7.2 system is actually pretty quick if you can get 3 or more bars of signal, only get one that can take the plug in external antenna! Unfortunately the prepaid device cannot do this.
  • by George_Ou (849225) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:01AM (#27208059)
    4G is a mobile solution where the signal is radiated every direction and cells get blanketed by signals that are useful to mobile devices. Millimeter wave is a point-to-point technology that requires a clear line of sight and should be compared to free space optic laser solutions. You so much as block the beam with a tree branch and it doesn't work. Can we try to get some quality reporting on slashdot? We have plenty of experts in this community and headlines like these need to get slapped down. We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by qc_dk (734452)
      You find "Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless" to be USA bashing????
      <sarcasm>Well I am truly sorry that someone outside the US is trying to do research. I'll stop mine immediately and wait for our benevolent super power for life to do the research and give me what I need. I'll just be over in this cave eating raw animals. I wouldn't want to be the reason for another US "bashing".
      </sarcasm>
      This post was tagged to comply with the Sarcasm-impaired Aid Directive (SAD)
      • by George_Ou (849225) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:23AM (#27208163)
        The article is comparing 4G performance at 150 Mbps using only 20 MHz of spectrum to to millimeter wave technology which uses tens of GHz for line-of-sight application for multi gigabit links. Then it suggest that the rest of the world is lagging because of this bogus comparison. OK, maybe it's not just US bashing, but it's bashing the rest of the world.
        • by jabithew (1340853) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:54AM (#27208267)

          You're missing the point.

          We don't need another clueless USA bashing headline.

          Europe Is Testing 12.5 Gbps Wireless

          What exactly could be done to the headline to mollify you?

          Godless Communists in Europe Testing Unwholesome, Anti-Family Services

          This is not a criticism of America, though the comments make some still-valid criticisms of US telecoms services.

          • by George_Ou (849225)
            The entry was written as rest of the world still struggling with pathetic 3G/4G hundred megabit speeds while "Europe" pushes ahead with 12.5 Gbps.

            There are multiple problems with this statement.
            1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.
            2. It's not a valid comparison of technologies.

            You're making it sound like I'm bashing Europe when I've said no such thing. Europe (along with the US and many other countries produces very good research. I didn't even mention godlessness
            • by jabithew (1340853)

              Well, with that kind of grasp of satire at least we know for sure that you're American.

              • by TheLink (130905)
                Maybe he's one of those AIs.

                Given the way things are going, it looks like the mental abilities of AIs and the average person will converge in a few years time :).
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              The point he was making is that you said specifically that the headline was US bashing, but all the headline says is the some research is being conducted in Europe. You'd have to work very hard at being insecure and over-sensitive to read that as some kind of slight against America. From a purely pedantic standpoint, it's the article/summary that you should have denounced, the headline was entirely innocuous.
            • by mjbkinx (800231)

              1. "Europe" isn't doing the research, some European researchers are.

              It's EU funded and coordinated research. It should have been "EU is testing...", because Europe is a continent, but otherwise it's correct.

          • IMHO, it's link-baiting rather than bashing, and share George_Ou's call for quality reporting. Let me explain:
            1. Firstly, from a quality of reporting issue: This technology is in Europe? Readers in Europe are left thinking "Where in Europe? Why don't I have it?"
            2. Once you understand that the intended reader is a non-European, the link-baiting starts to show as what it is. Then, the headline reads "Someone who isn't us is testing something faster than what we have."
            3. Now, the above wouldn't be so bad if it were
    • by Cyner (267154)
      This isn't "new" technology. I have a book on wireless backhaul technology that's 6 years old and has information on 68GHz links gigabit links. At that time there was no commercial product available, but the information was included because they knew it would be coming. Proxim also makes a commercial setup currently (granted it's only 1.25 Gbps, but it's on the shelf right now, and has been for a while) product link [proxim.com].

      These 30GHz+ links operate over a very short distance, less than 1 Km, and must have a cl
  • by MoFoQ (584566) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:08AM (#27208085)

    12.5Gbps which means 1.5625GBps and the data transfer limits we have in the states here, it will take 3.2 seconds to be in overage-city.
    Hmmm...isn't that faster than a Porsche's or Ferrari's 0 to 60 speed?

    [sarcasm]The good thing is....it'll be at least 5 years since they have it in Europe until we have it here[/sarcasm]

  • by aoheno (645574)
    Land line went years ago. Fiber will be next together with the 1Gbps wired LAN and everything hanging off it - especially the not so green power adapters, quaint WAPs, Switches, and Routers.

    Imagine no more ISPs. Netflix can stop throttling. Computers only need RAM and boot from the cloud.

    Will my 4G Google phone need a small power station or will a standard adapter do?
  • I for one (Score:4, Funny)

    by atarione (601740) on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:14AM (#27208131)

    welcome our new 12.5Gbps brain tumor inducing overlords

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:29AM (#27208179)

    the correct link is http://www.ist-iphobac.org/ [ist-iphobac.org], not http://www.iphobac-survey.org/ [iphobac-survey.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16, 2009 @05:32AM (#27208195)
    The comparison with 3G/4G systems is misleading, as these terms denote wide-area cellular telephone networks. Our cellular links are mobile, work over long ranges, and do not require a line-of-sight path from transmitter to receiver. 60 GHz wireless links, by comparison, typically require highly directive antennas, ie. the transmitter radiates energy directly at the receiver in a narrow beam. This makes it more suitable for fixed point link, rather than mobile, at this stage of development. Also, 60 GHz wireless signals are highly attenuated as they pass through solid objects, hence the need for a line-of-sight path. So, while its true mm-wave communications offers unparalleled wireless data rates, the comparison with cellular networks is not necessarily a good one.
  • One reasons the 60ghz(5mm) mentioned in TFA is so great is that it won't make it from the living room into the bedroom so you don't get interference when you use it to go from the ps3 to the wall mounted flatscreen.

    1mm(300ghz) is well into the water absorption band, to get out of it you'd need to get up around to 10 *micro*meter wave lengths. EHF for cellphones would require towers all over the place, the range wouldn't even be as good as wifi unless you jacked the power high enough that it would scare me

    • by vadim_t (324782)

      Incidentally 3mm (100ghz) wavelength is what that "skin on fire" ray uses.

      Wouldn't that be actually a good thing from the safety point of view? That would mean it has very bad depth penetration, and if it damages anything, it'll be the most easily replaceable part of the body. It's also one full of nerves, so you're likely to notice that something's wrong soon enough. Something that penetrates deeper could quietly cook the brain instead. While I'd certainly prefer neither, if I have to pick one, I'd certain

  • This technology could drive all the nails in the coffin lid for cable TV. At these download speeds one could download all of the programs for all of these channels in a minute or two. The only reason for further contact that day would be news updates. Of course we will need some type of hard drive arrangement that can record 12.5Gps..

  • First of all, New technologies = new techno waste.
    Second, will the new technologies be more environment friendly for production and disposal?
    What about energy consumption?
    And finally, do the pros surpass cons?
  • Zero to... (Score:2, Funny)

    by akeyes (720106)
    Zero to Capped in no time flat!
  • .......ups wrong technology.

    But anyway imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

  • One of the boundary conditions of internet speed is the size of the material being sent over the wireless network. If all you have is small sound files, then you'll need to be sending over years of music to fully use the 12.5 Gbps. The usefulness of internet speed increases only logarithmically. There is almost as much use for 1000000 Gbps as 100 Gbps. Only a small portion of the people actually using the internet would see any difference between the 1000000 and 100 Gbps. Once you hit the critical valu

  • Editors, please be a bit more sensitive. There is no country "Europe", and most of us on the continent Europe do not want it to become a country.
    We are only stuck with some assholes that we did not vote for, that created a "government" that we can't really vote for, and that we explicitly can't vote not to exist in the first place.
    Americans who were stuck with an asshole President, should understand this. :)

    So don't say "Europe", as if it were a single country. It's like calling North-America a country, and

    • Editors, please be a bit more sensitive. There is no country "Europe", and most of us on the continent Europe do not want it to become a country We are only stuck with some assholes that we did not vote for, that created a "government" that we can't really vote for, and that we explicitly can't vote not to exist in the first place. Americans who were stuck with an asshole President, should understand this. :)

      We've understood it fine since at least the Civil War.

      (In case you're not familiar with the real i

      • That's when the Several States found out, violently, that they couldn't leave the federation if they disagreed with its politics or the economic central planning that moved the money to New York and kept what's now "flyover country" in third-world status.

        "Flyover country" isn't, and hasn't been, in third-world status, and isn't the part of the country that tried to secede, anyway. And the principal policy that the Confederate States (their name for themselves, as opposed to the made-up poppycock label you'

  • IPHOBAC (Score:3, Funny)

    by ghostis (165022) on Monday March 16, 2009 @11:49AM (#27212261) Homepage

    Fear of Anonymous Cowards is a serious issue. They should get help.

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...