But we've also seen tech unveiled for much smaller "portable" towers. Little boxes that can literally blend in with the environment.
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Near Future Will Bring About Wireless Tech that is 1,000 Times Faster than 4G
- Thread starter dgstorm
- Start date
But we've also seen tech unveiled for much smaller "portable" towers. Little boxes that can literally blend in with the environment.
It's almost frightening how quickly technology advances sometimes. .....they could leap-frog this new breakthrough and achieve speeds 1,000 times faster than their newest breakthrough! If you are doing the simple math, this means that it is possible within our lifetime, we will see internet data speeds 1 Million times faster than our current tech. Hmmm... Speculate on this. The philosophical potentialities are endless!
Source: BGR
think of all the pr0n!!Sent from my DROID BIONIC using DroidForums
I think I'm in the wrong line of work. Some years back...maybe it was 2001, I wrote a fake article about a technology called AirNet, that could transmit data at speeds in the terahertz range, with amazing speeds. Working at a big technology company, (hint: Big Blue) I thought my article would get attention, but alas I was just a small fish in a big 'blue' sea.
On another note...I wonder how long it would take for my phone to cook my brain using this new technology.
On another note...I wonder how long it would take for my phone to cook my brain using this new technology.
Agreed..simple science dictates the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength.
Short wavelength does not equal low power
My concern would be that these very short wavelengths could be affecting more than our cell phones. It could be affecting the cells in our selves. I sure hope this is carefully studied before being unleashed.
D
debroq
Guest
56k?
I remember my 300-bit/s modem connected to my Commodore Vic-20.
I remember my 300-bit/s modem connected to my Commodore Vic-20.
JohnnytheK
Senior Member
Oh yeah I remember the text was so slow you watch the letters form across the screen letter by letter with quiet beep.
Sent my new Droid Razr Maxx
GlueFactoryBJJ
New Member
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you tell them that story TODAY, they will give you the same look!
To date myself, I can remember making a long distance call to my brother at ~$1.25 a minute with a 300bps (300 baud to those of you who remember such old terminology) modem to download a 10K file.
He was living in New York city at the time and I was in Seattle. I believe it was 1983. We were using DOS PC's using PC Modem software and the Kermit protocol to catch data transmission errors (something that was VERY important then because of the horrible long distance connection quality of the time.
I don't even want to talk about my TRS-80 I had in the 70's with 4K RAM and cassette tape data/program storage!
UGH! Now I'm going to have nightmares. I need to snuggle up with my Droid Bionic which has about 1000 times (or more) the processing power of the most powerful supercomputer of the time. Ahhh, that's better... :blink:
Scott
armedmonkey
Member
Interesting, but typically, with higher frequency (which also means shorter wave lengths) you lose a lot of ability to get around obstacles.
Ex:
1) Sound has low frequency / long wavelength - You can shout and hear someone around corners or in another room
2) Light has high frequency - it won't pass through solid objects (unless it's really intense light)
3) Wifi 5ghz is known to have more trouble in large buildings or across different floors.
It's a well known principle in electromagnetics and communication. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, typically the only way to compensate is to amplify the signal. I'd be concerned about that. People are already complaining of cell phones causing cancer
Ex:
1) Sound has low frequency / long wavelength - You can shout and hear someone around corners or in another room
2) Light has high frequency - it won't pass through solid objects (unless it's really intense light)
3) Wifi 5ghz is known to have more trouble in large buildings or across different floors.
It's a well known principle in electromagnetics and communication. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, typically the only way to compensate is to amplify the signal. I'd be concerned about that. People are already complaining of cell phones causing cancer
Our issue isn't technology it is economics (something techies, and I guess folks generally, prefer not to discuss out of fear of being branded a commie or worse).
It's this country. The tech can be available, but if sufficient profit can't be eeked out of it (enough to satisfy the venture capitalists and other investors) then the tech will likely never move beyond the publicly funded university setting in which it was birthed.
We've had the technology but not the political will to have faster and cheaper internet for some time now. Our economic model is in the way and has been for a long time. When I was taking classes, we would always have this really disingenuous discussion about how South Korea advanced so quickly and became a tech leader in the world, competing against industrialized countries which had such a huge headstart, like the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, etc. The people of South Korea understood that true computer literacy for the entire population was key to having a thriving tech sector. Faster connections for everyone would mean more learning, faster innovation, etc. So they formed public private partnerships and ran T1 lines to every house in the country. This was ten years ago now. They now have turned that nationwide T1 network into wifi everywhere. South Koreans are always more than a little blown away when they come here and see so many people on slow connections. Here in the US!
I understand of course that this country is larger and that wiring EVERY house would have been an economically different scale of task than a country like South Korea with a much smaller land mass. But our economics and capacities are bigger as well and we could have done major cities without a hitch. But it wasn't politically possible because big corporations like AOL-Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon wouldn't have it.
So while it's fun to discuss the possibilities of revolutionizing tech we need to understand (or accept rather) the practical limitations of this society which are political not technical. Capitalism inspires incredible technologies but in the end it also suppresses those same technologies for the sake of continued and expanded profits through existing technologies. Ever wonder why we've gone to the moon, can chat in real time with someone in Beijing but still get 25 to 30 miles per gallon fuel economy just like the first cars invented did over a hundred years ago? Hint: it's not a technical limitation.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
It's this country. The tech can be available, but if sufficient profit can't be eeked out of it (enough to satisfy the venture capitalists and other investors) then the tech will likely never move beyond the publicly funded university setting in which it was birthed.
We've had the technology but not the political will to have faster and cheaper internet for some time now. Our economic model is in the way and has been for a long time. When I was taking classes, we would always have this really disingenuous discussion about how South Korea advanced so quickly and became a tech leader in the world, competing against industrialized countries which had such a huge headstart, like the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, etc. The people of South Korea understood that true computer literacy for the entire population was key to having a thriving tech sector. Faster connections for everyone would mean more learning, faster innovation, etc. So they formed public private partnerships and ran T1 lines to every house in the country. This was ten years ago now. They now have turned that nationwide T1 network into wifi everywhere. South Koreans are always more than a little blown away when they come here and see so many people on slow connections. Here in the US!
I understand of course that this country is larger and that wiring EVERY house would have been an economically different scale of task than a country like South Korea with a much smaller land mass. But our economics and capacities are bigger as well and we could have done major cities without a hitch. But it wasn't politically possible because big corporations like AOL-Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon wouldn't have it.
So while it's fun to discuss the possibilities of revolutionizing tech we need to understand (or accept rather) the practical limitations of this society which are political not technical. Capitalism inspires incredible technologies but in the end it also suppresses those same technologies for the sake of continued and expanded profits through existing technologies. Ever wonder why we've gone to the moon, can chat in real time with someone in Beijing but still get 25 to 30 miles per gallon fuel economy just like the first cars invented did over a hundred years ago? Hint: it's not a technical limitation.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
armedmonkey
Member
That's why we have a federated government, with states, which are supposed to model the agility of smaller countries. It works so well. /s
energy vs pressure
This isn't strictly relevant to the actual subject of this string, but just to comment on another comment:
Light and communication carrier waves are on a contiguous energy spectrum. An energy wave's ability to pass through or bend around objects is described by a very different physics than that of a compressional air pressure wave (sound) bending around objects. The math that describes propagation of sound waves and energy waves do have parallels, but sound is a compressional wave, not an oscillating wave like energy. It is the oscillation at cell-sized energy wavelengths (tissue and brain cells, not cell phones), I believe, that cause the concerns about cancer because it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see those little energy waves screwing with our microscopic building blocks. They're not sure if there is a real concern because the energy is low - so far. My earlier comment was referring to the increase in energy levels in those tiny waves that I perceived coming into the technology (I hope I'm wrong about that).
By the way, the comment was correct regarding lower frequency (longer wave length). The longer it is, the more easily it bends around objects, but the objects a wave navigates around is related directly to the length of one wave cycle. The sound wavelength of 'middle C' is about 4 feet. The sound wavelength of 1,000 Hz (in the middle of our speaking voice range) is about 1 foot. The wavelengths of cell carrier signals are measured in fractions of millimeters - similar enough to the sizes of our own cells.
This isn't strictly relevant to the actual subject of this string, but just to comment on another comment:
Light and communication carrier waves are on a contiguous energy spectrum. An energy wave's ability to pass through or bend around objects is described by a very different physics than that of a compressional air pressure wave (sound) bending around objects. The math that describes propagation of sound waves and energy waves do have parallels, but sound is a compressional wave, not an oscillating wave like energy. It is the oscillation at cell-sized energy wavelengths (tissue and brain cells, not cell phones), I believe, that cause the concerns about cancer because it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see those little energy waves screwing with our microscopic building blocks. They're not sure if there is a real concern because the energy is low - so far. My earlier comment was referring to the increase in energy levels in those tiny waves that I perceived coming into the technology (I hope I'm wrong about that).
By the way, the comment was correct regarding lower frequency (longer wave length). The longer it is, the more easily it bends around objects, but the objects a wave navigates around is related directly to the length of one wave cycle. The sound wavelength of 'middle C' is about 4 feet. The sound wavelength of 1,000 Hz (in the middle of our speaking voice range) is about 1 foot. The wavelengths of cell carrier signals are measured in fractions of millimeters - similar enough to the sizes of our own cells.