Miscellaneous Tech News
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
Depending on your location - it's more a comparison of as you said - "slow-ass satellite broadband internet"vs no internet at all.
In western Nebraska is is very little internet. Oddly enough there is power, but no internet, or only just the crappies of near dialup type service.
What I think Scott is saying, is that you can bring much higher speeds of internet to places that have power through the use of LEO satellites.
i.e. You live on the top of a mountain, you have a huge solar array - so you have power, but today you have no internet, or only the crappy HO satellite stuff. Tomorrow with LEO satellite, you could suddenly have fairly decent internet access on that mountain top.I am NOT going to be on mountain tops and/or such areas 99.9% of the time... so getting back to reality... 5G it is.
I also do not, and never will, live in Western Nebraska. So none of what you said applies. I'm not going to buy and deal with not having 5G for that 0.01% of the time having 5G will not be beneficial. That just doens't make sense.
You seem really hung up on 5G... That's like being hung up on LTE today - I don't get it.
-
5G is your connection back to the tower. That’s it.
If fibre is unavailable as a backhaul option from the tower LEO could do the trick.I’d find it an interesting comparison between microwave towers and LEO backhaul
-
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
Depending on your location - it's more a comparison of as you said - "slow-ass satellite broadband internet"vs no internet at all.
In western Nebraska is is very little internet. Oddly enough there is power, but no internet, or only just the crappies of near dialup type service.
What I think Scott is saying, is that you can bring much higher speeds of internet to places that have power through the use of LEO satellites.
i.e. You live on the top of a mountain, you have a huge solar array - so you have power, but today you have no internet, or only the crappy HO satellite stuff. Tomorrow with LEO satellite, you could suddenly have fairly decent internet access on that mountain top.I am NOT going to be on mountain tops and/or such areas 99.9% of the time... so getting back to reality... 5G it is.
I also do not, and never will, live in Western Nebraska. So none of what you said applies. I'm not going to buy and deal with not having 5G for that 0.01% of the time having 5G will not be beneficial. That just doens't make sense.
You seem really hung up on 5G... That's like being hung up on LTE today - I don't get it.
What do you mean you don't get it? For what possible reason could you see me wanting satellite broadband internet over 5G? Given that the downsides of 5G will not apply to me, I don't see how it's possible you don't get it.
-
How Tara AI Is Helping Developers Build Better Software Faster
Choosing the right programming language or framework often involves a bit of guesswork, which is what Tara AI is aiming to replace with machine learning.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
Depending on your location - it's more a comparison of as you said - "slow-ass satellite broadband internet"vs no internet at all.
In western Nebraska is is very little internet. Oddly enough there is power, but no internet, or only just the crappies of near dialup type service.
What I think Scott is saying, is that you can bring much higher speeds of internet to places that have power through the use of LEO satellites.
i.e. You live on the top of a mountain, you have a huge solar array - so you have power, but today you have no internet, or only the crappy HO satellite stuff. Tomorrow with LEO satellite, you could suddenly have fairly decent internet access on that mountain top.I am NOT going to be on mountain tops and/or such areas 99.9% of the time... so getting back to reality... 5G it is.
I also do not, and never will, live in Western Nebraska. So none of what you said applies. I'm not going to buy and deal with not having 5G for that 0.01% of the time having 5G will not be beneficial. That just doens't make sense.
You seem really hung up on 5G... That's like being hung up on LTE today - I don't get it.
What do you mean you don't get it? For what possible reason could you see me wanting satellite broadband internet over 5G? Given that the downsides of 5G will not apply to me, I don't see how it's possible you don't get it.
Well - you're railing on about 5G - which Scott has basically said why 5G and LEO have nothing to do with each other - there is basically no overlap - except those who are in very rural areas...
So what - you just want 5G over LTE over cable modems over fiber connections? uh.. OK.. Two Thumbs up. -
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
Depending on your location - it's more a comparison of as you said - "slow-ass satellite broadband internet"vs no internet at all.
In western Nebraska is is very little internet. Oddly enough there is power, but no internet, or only just the crappies of near dialup type service.
What I think Scott is saying, is that you can bring much higher speeds of internet to places that have power through the use of LEO satellites.
i.e. You live on the top of a mountain, you have a huge solar array - so you have power, but today you have no internet, or only the crappy HO satellite stuff. Tomorrow with LEO satellite, you could suddenly have fairly decent internet access on that mountain top.I am NOT going to be on mountain tops and/or such areas 99.9% of the time... so getting back to reality... 5G it is.
I also do not, and never will, live in Western Nebraska. So none of what you said applies. I'm not going to buy and deal with not having 5G for that 0.01% of the time having 5G will not be beneficial. That just doens't make sense.
You seem really hung up on 5G... That's like being hung up on LTE today - I don't get it.
What do you mean you don't get it? For what possible reason could you see me wanting satellite broadband internet over 5G? Given that the downsides of 5G will not apply to me, I don't see how it's possible you don't get it.
Well - you're railing on about 5G - which Scott has basically said why 5G and LEO have nothing to do with each other - there is basically no overlap - except those who are in very rural areas...
So what - you just want 5G over LTE over cable modems over fiber connections? uh.. OK.. Two Thumbs up.That's right. I'll buy 5G and you can buy whatever service Tesla sells over their Leo network.
-
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Dashrender said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
Depending on your location - it's more a comparison of as you said - "slow-ass satellite broadband internet"vs no internet at all.
In western Nebraska is is very little internet. Oddly enough there is power, but no internet, or only just the crappies of near dialup type service.
What I think Scott is saying, is that you can bring much higher speeds of internet to places that have power through the use of LEO satellites.
i.e. You live on the top of a mountain, you have a huge solar array - so you have power, but today you have no internet, or only the crappy HO satellite stuff. Tomorrow with LEO satellite, you could suddenly have fairly decent internet access on that mountain top.I am NOT going to be on mountain tops and/or such areas 99.9% of the time... so getting back to reality... 5G it is.
I also do not, and never will, live in Western Nebraska. So none of what you said applies. I'm not going to buy and deal with not having 5G for that 0.01% of the time having 5G will not be beneficial. That just doens't make sense.
You seem really hung up on 5G... That's like being hung up on LTE today - I don't get it.
What do you mean you don't get it? For what possible reason could you see me wanting satellite broadband internet over 5G? Given that the downsides of 5G will not apply to me, I don't see how it's possible you don't get it.
Well - you're railing on about 5G - which Scott has basically said why 5G and LEO have nothing to do with each other - there is basically no overlap - except those who are in very rural areas...
So what - you just want 5G over LTE over cable modems over fiber connections? uh.. OK.. Two Thumbs up.That's right. I'll buy 5G and you can buy whatever service Tesla sells over their Leo network.
You're missing the point - almost no consumers will be buying anything from Telsa or Amazon, they will be buying 5G or other land based solutions, just like you.
But who THOSE people buy their connection from can and will be Tesla and Amazon. -
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@Obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
If this example map below is true in a reasonable time, then I really do not need internet this 5G coverage proposal will not cover:
I think you missed the point . 5G is like a driveway, period. It's the access BETWEEN you and the Internet, not your access TO the Internet. 5G coverage can be 100%, but if it doesn't have Internet uplinks, you still can't get email.
The satellite services are the backhaul that make things like 5G able to work. So no amount of 5G coverage helps you on its own, none.
I really don't give a shit how you want to swing this.
I'll buy my 5G connection, you can buy your slow-ass satellite broadband internet connection.
We'll then compare our internet connection latency and speeds and see...
So, like always, you have no idea WTF are actually talking about.
The entire point of LEO networks is low latency. Starlink (not Tesla) has publicly announced that 20ms is the initial goal with 10ms as things get up to full functionality.
The others are also wrong by stating that Starlink is for backend. Yes, that will likely be the larger market by dollars, but it sill be 100% available to anyone, anywhere. Other systems are unknown, as they have not publicly released anything.
5G is not some miracle. It is in fact a huge pain in the ass to get implemented. Coverage maps are total bullshit marketing. I am not surprised that you fell for something like this. It seems to be a character flaw for you.
Coverage maps are huge generalizations. My neighbor could have perfect 5G coverage in his house, but I can have none. Because his house blocks it from mine. The need for more and more towers to actually implement ubiquitous 5G will run into so many NIMBY problems it is not even funny.
Edit: Here is a link to an article about the tower issue in Japan that I read a day ago.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190703/p2g/00m/0bu/091000cIt is such a big issue that the government is offering space on traffic signals.
-
@JaredBusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
So, like always, you have no idea WTF are actually talking about.
Piss the hell off. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I read all the articles. 5G latency goals are way less and speed goals are way more. Also like you said the others are wrong about their shit basing their assumptions on stuff they obviously weren't sure about. Stop giving me shit.
-
Third parties confirm AMD’s outstanding Ryzen 3000 numbers
AMD debuted its new Ryzen 3000 desktop CPU line a few weeks ago at E3, and it looked fantastic. For the first time in 20 years, it looked like AMD could go head to head with Intel's desktop CPU line-up across the board. The question: would independent, third-party testing back up AMD's assertions?
-
Bungie is investigating why Destiny 2 won't run on Ryzen 3000 PCs
Reports of issues getting Destiny 2 to run on a Ryzen 3000 system are piling up.
Several Destiny 2 players who upgraded to a Ryzen 3000 series CPU are reporting that the game will not load properly. It's not clear what is causing the hiccup, though the good news is that Bungie is aware of the problem and is looking into it. -
Microsoft Previews Azure Active Directory FIDO2 Sign-Ins Without Passwords
Microsoft on announced the availability of a public preview of Azure Active Directory's FIDO2 support.
FIDO2, or FAST Identity Online 2.0, is a Web standard for user authentications without passwords. -
Silent Mac update nukes dangerous webserver installed by Zoom
Fix also requires users to confirm they want to join a Zoom conference
Apple said it has pushed a silent macOS update that removes the undocumented webserver that was installed by the Zoom conferencing app for Mac. -
Dropbox Transfer tests direct sharing of files up to 100GB
Send copies of files (even the big ones) with this new Dropbox feature.
Dropbox is adding a new option for how its users can share files. -
KALI LINUX RELEASED FOR RASPBERRY PI
Last month, June Raspberry Pi foundation released RPi 4 with more memory options and useful features. Recently Kali Linux announced the release of its Kali Linux images for Raspberry Pi.
Recently, Kali Linux tweeted the news of releasing the pentesting distro for RPi and got a good response from its followers -
-
-
-
Website drive-by attacks on routers are alive and well. Here’s what to do
Researchers detect 4.6 million attempts over 2 months in Brazil alone.
Website drive-by attacks that try to booby trap visitors’ routers are alive and well, according to antivirus provider Avast, which blocked more than 4.6 million of them in Brazil over a two-month span. -
Microsoft Teams is now officially bigger than Slack
It's the first official milestone for Microsoft's group chat, and it's a big one.
Microsoft Teams may have only been around for two years, but the group-chat platform is already larger than one of its main competitors.
