D
Deleted member 81567
Unconfirmed Member
I sense some hyperbole in the OP.
DIDO Wireless Technology (this is the future)
- Thread starter Casp0r
- Start date
- Status
TacticalFox88
Banned
I'm buying stock in this technology the MINUTE it's available. It's just too good an oppurtunity to pass up
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
narcosis219 said:
How could I realize if all OP did was give a fluff piece about how amazing it is without mentioning any numbers or even the beginnings of an explanation about wtf this is?
ThoseDeafMutes said:
my take:
- when current portable device listens to a specific wireless signal, it can be overwhelmed if there is ton of crap signals in the air.
- Perlman's tech is designed to enable devices to receive not just single stream, but multiple. Like downloading torrents from multiple peers]
- im not really sure, but portable device it seem can look only for the signals that are intented for it. It ignores signals that are going for other users.
- to enable device to receive data in linear fashion, broadcast centers needs to know you position. When they triangulate your position, multiple streams can then be sent to your way and data will be collected.
- more streams you recieve - more speed you have
Perlman will be richest man on the world when this shit starts to be implemented.
show me your skeleton
Member
DieH@rd said:
considering what he's achieved already i imagine he's not doing too badly.
but anyway, amazing stuff, i really hope it's embraced and worked upon.
MarkMclovin
Member
Anyone else read DILDO?
No?
No?
B_Rik_Schitthaus
Banned
*Pic of Snake Plissken *2th said:
Backfoggen
Banned
Steve Perlman likes his data centers.
coolcole93 said:
Only this isn't some quack in a garage, it's done by an extremely reputable industrial icon.
It has been proven to work already and more importantly it hasn't been proven on paper it can't work, despite Steve Perlman actually hiring people to do so.
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I thought I'd let the articles I linked do all the hard work. I was tempted to copypasta, however it would have made the post way to long to fit it all in.
But yeah that aside, it's my first thread, so sue me.
Drkirby said:
Read the articles and you'll realize it's already proven itself. Current wireless understanding calls what he's already done with those 10 devices impossible, that alone says enough about this technology.
Anyway some of you guys might not fully understand what extremely low latency fast wireless connections like this could do. So check out something else Steve Perlmans been working on. Onlive streams games right? Well why not a windows desktop ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znfA-WLAsAE#t=27m46s
Yes that is him running Autodesk Maya through an iPad ...
Casp0r said:
He got labelled a snake oil salesman by some armchair engineers at a few tech sites all the way up until the OnLive beta started. This despite the fact that the problem of streaming video with low latency is all about the video codec used, and the man created a pretty common one called Quicktime. Anways, they quieted down really quick.
Partly; mostly genuine disdain. Hard to argue with better Wifi speeds [though it's not convincing this technology will end up providing much of that] - but coupling this with some push to put *everything* off the device grates me. Prefer as much stuff to be kept locally as possible.Raistlin said:
Prophet Steve
Member
Yes, you were beaten already.MarkMclovin said:
Well, here's as far as I understand it:DieH@rd said:
What happens first when a user connects is that all visible access points will send test data, the user responds and gives information about how strong each of the signals are. This is nothing new and is done by cell phones already. There's probably just a small amount of bandwidth dedicated for this and it's probably some form of Aloha protocol.
Once the power data is known this is transmitted to the Data Center. When something is transmitted to the user, the Data Center uses all of the power data from all the users connected, and creates a waveform for each of the Access Points. Once all of the waves interfere and add up, you get a new signal. As long as you stand in the right position (and you will as long as the power data is still correct) the waves will add up to the signal intended for you. However, another user in another spot, seeing exactly the same access points, will get a different signal since they add up differently due to the power differences between the waves.
The paper doesn't go into any detail on the algorithm needed to create these waveforms however they have apparently made sure that the computing power needed scales linearly with the amount of users. Since this way, every user has access to the entire bandwidth all the time, the Shannon Capacity applies to each individual user and is not distributed across all the users from one access point.
The big problem as I see it would be with mobility. Once you are in a moving car the power data won't stay relevant for long and as such, the throughput will possibly be even worse than on current systems, however that is just speculation on my part. I do not think more streams increases your speed though, but having access to several access points would probably be preferable in order to create good waveforms for each user.
Sir Fragula said:
I dunno man. If the technology delivers on its promise; high speed, low latency internet connection, allowing for basically interactive video feeds, ala on-live...
Then the potential gains, even from the user perspective is massive.
I think future devices will be half cloud, half device storage though - cloud based applications (assuming absolute reliability - which this DIDO service sounds like it's capable of delivering), but the ability to copy and paste files from other devices like we are currently able to do.
... the other option, having all cloud storage might work, as long as there's no file restriction on what can be uploaded. Otherwise, it'll simply represent too large a barrier to adoption for an immediate jump.
An entirely cloud based service may be more in the long term future once cultural trends have allowed for the acclimatization of cloud based storage (and allowing users to copy directly to cloud based storage).
But that's the whole point of the system. The signal to each user is the sum of the waveform sent from each AP. You will only get the correct signal if they sum up exactly right, which they only do at your specific location (or if somebody knows exactly how the waves are affected, you could use the base signals and simulate the propagation, which requires knowing the location of the user whose data you want to look at).Copernicus said:
It's all a moot point anyway, because there's nothing stopping each signal from being encrypted at the Data Center anyway.
Casp0r said:
You can. But I don't know how streamlined the interface for doing this is... and I mean as an important transitional step from local storage/cloud based storage, to fully cloud based storage.
When the whole ecosystem of electronics allow for cloud storage access (and of course, quick latency-less access), then people will say; fuck local.
Raistlin said:
Imagine 15 years after cloud based storage has become common place...
and assuming it doesn't have some weird restrictions that makes local storage desirable...
Why?
If you store it locally, you stop been able to access it via all your other devices. You lose considerably in convenience... and for little perceptible gain.
Again, assuming that the 1ms-5ms latency is not an exaggeration.
speculawyer
Member
I can't seem to read this article with my WebTV.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
zychi said:
If it was easy to get rich quickly, it wouldn't be easy to get rich quickly.
Casp0r said:
The future iPhone generation will look like a stylus from which the screen can be unrolled out of.
Take a pen in your hand.
Touch your thumb and index finger together along the edge of the pen.
Pull it outward.
Just some comments from a quick overview of the white-paper.
Well, the white-paper answered my math concerns, since it appears they base their waveform modifications based on listening to test signals, but even that's problematic. For one, it appears the entire setup will be heavily strained if a lot of people are in motion (moving quickly past spheres of coherence). Another problem is the more test signals they send to account for changing conditions, the worse the latency will be.
Then there's the whole bit about all internet traffic for DIDO APs will have to go through servers that know about every access point in an area. And if they're serious about covering everywhere, wouldn't every access point modulation servers have to know about all of them? How much effect does one person listening to Google Music streaming while driving 70 MPH have on the system? If all the APs immediately surrounding that person have to continually adjust, do the APs surrounding them have to adjust too? How far does it cascade?
Neat idea though, since they'd need their own frequency they can go ahead and start selling units without being too horribly disruptive to the rest of the spectrum.
Well, the white-paper answered my math concerns, since it appears they base their waveform modifications based on listening to test signals, but even that's problematic. For one, it appears the entire setup will be heavily strained if a lot of people are in motion (moving quickly past spheres of coherence). Another problem is the more test signals they send to account for changing conditions, the worse the latency will be.
Then there's the whole bit about all internet traffic for DIDO APs will have to go through servers that know about every access point in an area. And if they're serious about covering everywhere, wouldn't every access point modulation servers have to know about all of them? How much effect does one person listening to Google Music streaming while driving 70 MPH have on the system? If all the APs immediately surrounding that person have to continually adjust, do the APs surrounding them have to adjust too? How far does it cascade?
Neat idea though, since they'd need their own frequency they can go ahead and start selling units without being too horribly disruptive to the rest of the spectrum.
Assuming zero restrictions, sure ... but is that realistic? I've already amassed TB's of data, so what's the assumption here? There'll be some sort of Netflix-esque service that will be at a reasonable price that has everything I own, and be able to view it at bit-perfect data rates? Or is the assumption I'll have TB's of cloud service and transfer rates of greater than 40Mbs so it's bit-perfect?Zaptruder said:
Because right now, I already have that. I don't see either of the above propositions as being realistic in 15 years. If it is, cool ... I'll move to it.
The problem for the first is I simply find it unlikely that everything thing will be available (even assuming bitrates are sufficient). Even if it is for traditional content, how much will it cost? Worse, I have close to a TB of live music that is ever growing. Obviously that will never be available from a standard service since it's not pro material.
For the latter (cloud storage), do you think several TB's will be available and at streaming rates of BD or higher? If that is the case, it will take a while ... but I'd upload my shit.
Who says I can't access it via other ways? I have sky drive, Google Music, Amazon streaming ... but most importantly, I have direct internet access to my server. I can actually stream things to other locations as it is. Really the only obstacle is automatic bit-rate modulation based on the download speeds at the location I'm streaming - though there are ways around that. Admittedly, I only have around 24Mbs uplink ... though I can pay for higher if I decide I want to stream full bitrate BD's - and I suspect prices to improve with time.
So unless there ends up being a combination of tons of storage with massive bitrates anywhere and a Netflix-like service that's crazy high bitrates at a cheap price ... why would I stop using local storage? The reality is the largest portion of my viewing is at home with full features, and I already have internet streaming.
This is all before considering the impact of latency on slow motion, FF, etc and the lack of features from streaming services as far as extras, subtitles, etc.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
alphaNoid said:
im talking about people in their 40s plus right now who never got on the computer bandwagon. its not going to happen to me because i keep a keen interest in all the new tech as it comes out. im impatiently waiting for full vr right now and once we get to that point who cares what else happens
Raistlin said:
Look, I know where you're coming from. And you need to stop been so get out defensive.
I'm simply speaking in - far out there future terms.
I know you can do all those things now in some manner or another... but in my reckoning; local storage that you can do all those things to... is to cloud storage as VHS tapes and records are to local storage of today.
That is to say; 20-30 years out (and keeping in mind, cloud storage although available to many, is currently not been used by most) can you really still see yourself wanting to bother with local storage?
I don't think the technology will disappear - but it'll no longer be 'mainstream', and before we're too old to appreciate it as well.
How was my post defensive? You asked a question and I answered.Zaptruder said:
I didn't realize giving a detailed response assumes one's being defensive? I detailed my requirements with enough specificity so we wouldn't have to go back and forth with a bunch of posts to clear it up.
If anything, the fact my point of view doesn't match yours is causing you to be defensive. The post I'm replying to illustrates that.
Okay. So we're talking in future what if's?
Sure ... if we reach a point were the performance and features of cloud/DD matches what I can do at home ... and the pricing is reasonable ... then of course I'd consider it. I stated that explicitly. At this point, we really can't assume that will happen. Or if it does, whether it will be in my lifetime.
It's like you're angry at someone for wanting a certain level of performance and features.
Fury Sense
Member
This shit is real and it's the fucking future everyone
http://youtu.be/5bO0tjAdOIw?t=9m3s
It's called pCell now instead of DIDO
http://youtu.be/5bO0tjAdOIw?t=9m3s
It's called pCell now instead of DIDO
mr stroke
Member
Pretty impressive if this is true. If this is the real deal why hasn't every cellular company jumped on the band wagon of pCell yet?
Fury Sense
Member
Not sure. They just made their commercial unveiling a week ago. The guy says he's already got Netflix working with them at least for testing purposes. The demonstration in this video is pretty impressive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eMBBVG-MNY
Orbis Tabula
Member
This sounds too good to be true. I'm really optimistic after watching the videos, but I'm still afraid someone is about to pop up and say why this is a pipe-dream or a scam. I hope this really is the future. And I hope it comes quickly.
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
Its the same reasons why cable companies don't want to upgrade everyone to fiber. If this tech is as good as implied, any large scale implementation would affect immediate profitability and destroy the asset value of the infrastructure they currently own.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
My totally limited understanding is that this is basically like mass-transit, where instead of having individual cars, everyone hops into the same one.
Or more specifically, all signals are packed together, like taking the letters of two different books and putting the letters of one book in the empty spaces of the other, than separating them back. The implications on a security level seem be that everything will go through the same channel, naked. You couldn't send secure information over the system. That's the only way I can imagine that they can have the signals on the same frequency not take turns.
I'm probably 100% wrong, but I'd be curious to know. If this is what it is, you'd need a monopoly on the communications channel, and probably a government-run one.
Or more specifically, all signals are packed together, like taking the letters of two different books and putting the letters of one book in the empty spaces of the other, than separating them back. The implications on a security level seem be that everything will go through the same channel, naked. You couldn't send secure information over the system. That's the only way I can imagine that they can have the signals on the same frequency not take turns.
I'm probably 100% wrong, but I'd be curious to know. If this is what it is, you'd need a monopoly on the communications channel, and probably a government-run one.
FreddieQuell
Member
As long as he isn't just bullshitting, this video really shows how they are making a very small, coherent signal around the device's antenna with the interference of the radio waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv-vkBNzZwE#t=3m22s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv-vkBNzZwE#t=3m22s
spawnsniper
Member
this seems all nice and dandy but where in the world is the battery fix!?
they should focus on that first...
they should focus on that first...
The physical layer is sending encrypted data (from a higher layer), so there's no need to encrypt the data on that layer.
As for the actual transmission of data, I believe it's working based on cancellation of waves. So the data that is sent to you would be the sum of your data and the negative sum (simplification) of the data of all other users. When the data gets to you, the sum of all data cancels each other out to leave you with the data you want. The problem here is that the system would need to know your exact position at all times for the cancellation to work, which is rather unlikely, especially in high mobility situations.
Hopefully that made sense, lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll