 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/07/2011 9:56 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Mobile phones are no longer analogue and have been digital for some
>> while.
>
> The last analogue cellphone probably died a horrible death in the
> mid-90's.
>
No, I'm sure it was put out to pasture. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Now, where are my bones of sheep and would you mind if I burn a hellfire
over here ?
3G: the G is for Generation, the third.
Nothing related to Dilbert 26 march 2010.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> I'm just surprised that the practical stuff required
> to do this has actually been implemented now.
>
NOW!?!?? I realise you live in a backwoods third world country, but
here in the civilized world, phones have been hable to browse the
Internet since the early 2000s or so...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/07/2011 02:48 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> I'm just surprised that the practical stuff required
>> to do this has actually been implemented now.
>>
>
> NOW!?!?? I realise you live in a backwoods third world country, but here
> in the civilized world, phones have been hable to browse the Internet
> since the early 2000s or so...
When I said "it works now", I didn't mean to imply that this happened
recently. I don't follow mobile technology particularly closely; it's
not something of great use to me. (Also, I'm presuming that this
requires an extremely expensive phone with an extremely expensive
service plan. That would be another reason why I've never heard of it.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/08/2011 11:33 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 08/07/2011 02:48 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm just surprised that the practical stuff required
>>> to do this has actually been implemented now.
>>>
>>
>> NOW!?!?? I realise you live in a backwoods third world country, but here
>> in the civilized world, phones have been hable to browse the Internet
>> since the early 2000s or so...
>
> When I said "it works now", I didn't mean to imply that this happened
> recently. I don't follow mobile technology particularly closely; it's
> not something of great use to me. (Also, I'm presuming that this
> requires an extremely expensive phone with an extremely expensive
> service plan. That would be another reason why I've never heard of it.)
>
most plans have free phone associated with them now ... didn't pay a
dime for mine, also my plan isn't that much (don't recall) as I don't
use the cell for primary communication. I'm in rural area and just have
the phone in case I get stranded on some out of the way country road ...
particularly a good idea to have a cell during winter.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
