 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 1:41, Stephen wrote:
> should have been around when 9k6 bit/s was standard.
That pretty much *is* standard for pre-"G" phones. Basically, voice
conversations got squashed down to 9600Kbps for transmission, so it's very
slow on the original GSM and AMPS phones.
Now, of course, you have much higher bandwidth.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been replying to several posts here and elsewhere from my smartphone, even
from inside the bus, like this one. Even older very cheap cellphones could at
least browse pages via WAP...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/07/2011 2:14 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 08/07/2011 10:41, Stephen nous fit lire :
>> Magic! Before making an internet connection someone must kill a chicken
>> and study its guts... ;-)
>
> I thought it was a goat that was to be killed, and the study of its liver.
>
Certainly, goats if you are in a low thaumaturgic area.
> Now, where are my bones of sheep and would you mind if I burn a hellfire
> over here ?
No I don't mind and over by the CDs
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/07/2011 5:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/8/2011 1:41, Stephen wrote:
>> should have been around when 9k6 bit/s was standard.
>
> That pretty much *is* standard for pre-"G" phones. Basically, voice
> conversations got squashed down to 9600Kbps for transmission, so it's
> very slow on the original GSM and AMPS phones.
>
You live and learn. :-D
> Now, of course, you have much higher bandwidth.
>
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 11:33, Stephen wrote:
> You live and learn. :-D
Even now, I think the codec runs at 14.4 or 32Kbps for normal voice calls.
Data of course is faster, and there are usually codecs for things like MP3
and MP4 that run a lot faster on data already in the phone.
You'd be absolutely amazed at how much stuff gets stuffed into a cell phone
chip. Three or four different radio interfaces (i.e., GSM and 3G and 4G and
CDMA and etc etc), multiple USB root hubs, H.264 and MP4 and MP3 and
128-channel surround sound and multiple multi-gigahertz cpus and ....
I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could drive a decent laptop off what's
in a cell phone chip these days.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 11:27, nemesis wrote:
> least browse pages via WAP...
Technically, they could browse WML pages via WAP, which are nothing like
HTML. (Or TCP even, for that matter.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/07/08 12:05, Darren New a écrit :
> On 7/8/2011 1:41, Stephen wrote:
>> should have been around when 9k6 bit/s was standard.
>
> That pretty much *is* standard for pre-"G" phones. Basically, voice
> conversations got squashed down to 9600Kbps for transmission, so it's
> very slow on the original GSM and AMPS phones.
>
> Now, of course, you have much higher bandwidth.
>
9600Kbps?
I think that there is an extra "K" there... it's realy only 9600bps.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/8/2011 12:27, Alain wrote:
> I think that there is an extra "K" there... it's realy only 9600bps.
Indeed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> You'd be absolutely amazed at how much stuff gets stuffed into a cell phone
> chip. Three or four different radio interfaces (i.e., GSM and 3G and 4G and
> CDMA and etc etc), multiple USB root hubs, H.264 and MP4 and MP3 and
> 128-channel surround sound and multiple multi-gigahertz cpus and ....
> I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could drive a decent laptop off what's
> in a cell phone chip these days.
One argument that some of the moon hoax theorists say is that all the
technology in the lunar module can fit in a cellphone. Supposedly this shows
how "primitive" the technology in the lunar module was.
That's one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. We are talking
about the 60's here. If there was as much technology in the lunar module as
there is in a modern cellphone, that's actually quite an impressive feat for
the 60's engineers. What surprises me is not that technology has progressed;
what does surprise me is how advanced the technology was in the 60's, if the
claim is true. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that the claim isn't actually true.
They are making an exaggerated claim that, rather ironically, actually makes
the 60's technology look *better* than it probably was.)
(Of course this is yet another example of dishonesty from the part of
the conspiracy theorists. They abuse the fact that the average person has
no knowledge about how efficient dedicated hardware can be compared to
generic non-dedicated hardware. I'm pretty certain many of these people
do understand this, but they still make the claim, just to have yet another
argument in their shotgun.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/07/2011 4:15 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> That's one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. We are talking
> about the 60's here. If there was as much technology in the lunar module as
> there is in a modern cellphone, that's actually quite an impressive feat for
> the 60's engineers. What surprises me is not that technology has progressed;
> what does surprise me is how advanced the technology was in the 60's, if the
> claim is true. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that the claim isn't actually true.
> They are making an exaggerated claim that, rather ironically, actually makes
> the 60's technology look *better* than it probably was.)
>
According to a quick reading, the LM computer had 36,864 * 15 bit words
of ROM (actually hard wired) and 2,048 * 15 bit words of writeable
memory (equivalent to RAM).
Say about 74Kb of ROM and 4Kb of RAM. MUCH less than any modern 'smart'
phone.
It had multiple purposes including running the auto-pilot and being used
for navigation calculations. It had concurrent tasks and time sliced
amongst the highest priority ones. Memory locations were re-used since
there was so little available.
On the descent stage there were multiple data overloads causing the
computer to be reset - while controlling the rocket, radar and all of
the information displayed to the astronauts (apart from their own
eyeballs). It was restarted several times in the few critical minutes
while they were in the midst of decelerating to land.
It had been designed and tested to do this if needed.
As amazing as the computer was for its time, I think the most incredible
bit of engineering in the LM was the all important descent rocket
engine. It could be throttled and had to fire and shutdown for the
de-orbit burn then fire again for minutes during the descent to slow
down and land. 14 tonnes of spacecraft (less the ~8 tonnes of fuel
consumed) brought to rest safely on the surface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
