I thought maybe it was compressed before transmission, via wireless or wired, and decompressed on receipt. I'm not saying that what it is, but the stuff described in the article above is just what I was dreaming of when I read the Gigawire trademark application. By the description in Apple's trademark, it seems like it handles all data types via many different delivery pathways?wired or wireless. I know the ZDNet article talks mainly about storage, but it does mention Internet, too.
[quote] Telecommunication services; cellular telephone communication; Communication by computer terminals, communication by telephone, facsimile transmission; providing of electronic mail (E-Mail); computer aided transmission of messages and images; communication between computer peripherals and devices; information about telecommunication. <hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying the article is connected. I'm just saying a method of compressing data for quick transmission over wireless, cell phone, phone lines and various other wires best fits what it described in Apple's trademark. I know some think its just faster Firewire, but that doesn't fit the description. Some think its faster Firewire/Firewireless combined. If that's the case, it's not just hardware, but also a protocol for sending the data, maybe very compressed data. If its that plus it works over phone lines and it works over cell phones, then it has to be something to do with compression.
OK. I should have known. To sell an idea around here you need to cloak it in a bit of Oliver Stone conspiracy. I remember reading in a thread somewhere here about someone who was doing online chat with this guy in a limo who was using a Mac. He said the connection technology was top secret. The guy in the limo was in Florida. The company in the article above is in Florida! Coincidence? I think not!
Seriously, though, I'm not saying it is connected with this company or technology, but what if Apple has it's own mini breakthrough along these lines? Wouldn't something like this be necessary for the screen sharing web pad (with video) concept we are so fond of?
<strong>OK. I should have known. To sell an idea around here you need to cloak it in a bit of Oliver Stone conspiracy. I remember reading in a thread somewhere here about someone who was doing online chat with this guy in a limo who was using a Mac. He said the connection technology was top secret.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So if this is theorhetically possible, then I could store a full TERABYTE on a mere 100GB disk?
Whoa.
The article mentioned telecommunications companies fear loss of investment. But, I would imaging that if I could download 100x as much in the same period of time over a 56k line, that all their excess capacity would soon get eaten up anyway. Eveyone could share full bandwidth movies, and over broadband, allow for real-time multimedia collaboration!
<strong>So if this is theorhetically possible, then I could store a full TERABYTE on a mere 100GB disk?
Whoa.
The article mentioned telecommunications companies fear loss of investment. But, I would imaging that if I could download 100x as much in the same period of time over a 56k line, that all their excess capacity would soon get eaten up anyway. Eveyone could share full bandwidth movies, and over broadband, allow for real-time multimedia collaboration!
The future's so bright... :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't hold your breath, there is little likelyhood of this working. They claim to have broken Shannon's limit, which would throw all information theory into a tizzy, and also to be able to compress almost random data (what does almost mean?).
To show why this does'nt work consider, as an oversimplification, compressing an 8 bit byte of random data. If you can compress any random 8 bit byte to 4 bits, that means that there are 16 possible 4 bit compressed versions of 256 possible 8 bit data bytes. Each of the compressed versions has to expand into several different originals, not possible.
The get-out clause is the almost random word. It is possible that they have an improved compression algorithm, but I seriously doubt they can significantly compress already compressed data such as MPEG video, MP3 audio etc..
Comments
[quote] Telecommunication services; cellular telephone communication; Communication by computer terminals, communication by telephone, facsimile transmission; providing of electronic mail (E-Mail); computer aided transmission of messages and images; communication between computer peripherals and devices; information about telecommunication. <hr></blockquote>
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
Seriously, though, I'm not saying it is connected with this company or technology, but what if Apple has it's own mini breakthrough along these lines? Wouldn't something like this be necessary for the screen sharing web pad (with video) concept we are so fond of?
<strong>OK. I should have known. To sell an idea around here you need to cloak it in a bit of Oliver Stone conspiracy. I remember reading in a thread somewhere here about someone who was doing online chat with this guy in a limo who was using a Mac. He said the connection technology was top secret.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should have gotten him drunk.
Whoa.
The article mentioned telecommunications companies fear loss of investment. But, I would imaging that if I could download 100x as much in the same period of time over a 56k line, that all their excess capacity would soon get eaten up anyway. Eveyone could share full bandwidth movies, and over broadband, allow for real-time multimedia collaboration!
The future's so bright... :cool:
<strong>So if this is theorhetically possible, then I could store a full TERABYTE on a mere 100GB disk?
Whoa.
The article mentioned telecommunications companies fear loss of investment. But, I would imaging that if I could download 100x as much in the same period of time over a 56k line, that all their excess capacity would soon get eaten up anyway. Eveyone could share full bandwidth movies, and over broadband, allow for real-time multimedia collaboration!
The future's so bright... :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't hold your breath, there is little likelyhood of this working. They claim to have broken Shannon's limit, which would throw all information theory into a tizzy, and also to be able to compress almost random data (what does almost mean?).
To show why this does'nt work consider, as an oversimplification, compressing an 8 bit byte of random data. If you can compress any random 8 bit byte to 4 bits, that means that there are 16 possible 4 bit compressed versions of 256 possible 8 bit data bytes. Each of the compressed versions has to expand into several different originals, not possible.
The get-out clause is the almost random word. It is possible that they have an improved compression algorithm, but I seriously doubt they can significantly compress already compressed data such as MPEG video, MP3 audio etc..
Michael