Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Terabit Ethernet Inches Closer To Reality

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the beyond-electronics dept.

Networking 182

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from Australia, Denmark, and China have combined efforts to show the feasibility of terabit-per-second Ethernet over fiber-optic cables. The solution involves a photonic chip that uses laser light for switching signals, and a form of the exotic material type, chalcogenide, or arsenic trisulfide."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

red! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26845593)

Yet another first post!

no good (1, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845597)

I'm sorry. I'd like to be able to have my terabit ethernet runs over distances longer than a few inches.

Re:no good (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845649)

I only need inches, if you get my drift.

Re:no good (2, Insightful)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845659)

A "few" inches? Define "few." If few='3' then I agree with you, if few='3000000000000' then I think we've got something personal to hash out behind the wood-shed...

=Smidge=

Re:no good (4, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845747)

You can have a repeater every 3 inches. Simple.

Re:no good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846131)

You can have a repeater every 3 inches. Simple

Re:no good (5, Funny)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846205)

You can have a repeater every 3 inches. Simple

Re:no good (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846559)

Hey, with the prices of repeaters these days, that doesn't actually sound too bad.. or.. waitaminit, these are those complicated fiber optic multiplex thingamajiggers, no? Ah, well. Plenty of IT companies going bust to buy them off of, too :P

Re:no good (1)

ebuck (585470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846575)

My setup seems to have a repeater every two inches. Should I get a CCSPE (Certified Cisco Slashdot Posting Expert) to fix this or is it safe to adjust the font settings myself?

Re:no good (1)

elcorvax (1395311) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846703)

You can repeat the same joke every 3 posts . . .

Re:no good (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846899)

You can have a repeater every 3 inches. Simple

You might not be all wrong. [wired.com]

Right now the idea of using such a technology in a cable in a data center seems like madness (ho ho ho) but technology has a way of making the impossible commonplace, given enough time.

Re:no good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846249)

You can have a repeater ever 3 inches. Simpl

Re:no good (4, Funny)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846315)

Obviously you forgot your "NO CARRIER".

Re:no good (1)

LordEd (840443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846623)

No, the last one was valid. 5-4-3 rule [webopedia.com] . You can have 5 network segments connected by 4 repeaters, where 3 of the network segments can have user connections.

Now, i could add the fact that you can have a repeater every 3 inches, but since there are already 3 active replies on the others, my message wou#@&^$*% NO CARRIER

Re:no good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26847163)

no that was in the part just happened to be his catchpa....

Re:no good (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847371)

You can have a repeater ever 3 inches. Simply

It would also appear... (4, Funny)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846073)

...that we are inching our way towards the metric system.

Re:no good (0, Flamebait)

g8oz (144003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846269)

It's called research, genius. It's not a product announcement. This is Slashdot. If you want to drool over things you can't afford go read Engadget and the like.

Re:no good (3, Informative)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846485)

The article doesn't say how far they can send the terabit signal, only that the receiver requires 5 cm of fiber to split the signal into lower bandwidth pieces. Presumably the distance between sender and receiver is longer than that.

Re:no good (2, Insightful)

ebuck (585470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846649)

For such a high speed link, I think that a CSMA/CD technology is probably the wrong answer. Your "bubbles" in the network wire of collision screaming must be incredibly wasteful. But hey, we live in a field where waste is justified by the comparative cost of hardware upgrades over man hours.

I'd love to route Ethernet packets tunneled through an ATM link set up on this kind of bandwith, but somehow I don't think that solution requires cutting edge research.

Ethernet is good at doing what it does well, but the tuning require to make this truly effective might make the mess of jumbo packets look like child's play. I imagine that as the speeds increase, so will the issues. It's a remarkable achievement to push Ethernet this fast, but it seems that it's the equivalent of making your car travel 0.6c. At those speeds you have to wonder if you're using the right vehicle.

That's an aweful lot of porn. (5, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845641)

Not that I would ever use a terabit connection for porn... but uh, when's that coming out again?

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (5, Funny)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845837)

Not really. It's a well-known fact a lot of innovation is driven by the porn industry. This stuff is probably being sponsored by the Ultraporn [wikipedia.org] coalition to put their digital media online.

Imagine streaming video so clear you can actually sense the actresses' emotional issues!

-Matt

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845903)

False.

'Porn' gets into bed with all technologies. When using hindsight it may seem there are a predictor or a driver, but remember hind sight is a lying bitch.

Pretty much all 'failed' technologies have porn. dead technologies really aren't remembered. Hindsight is the worse kind of bias.

Finally:
Yes, that pun was intentional.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846173)

Clearly, you did not bother to click the accompanying link.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847201)

I decided that risk was to high. I am on break using my work computer.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846385)

Um, porn went VHS, instead of betamax. Porn went Blue-ray, instead of HD-DVD. Both of these happened when the competing standards were new, and both times, the side they picked one the format war, after they had decided to use that format.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846565)

Correlation is not causation.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847071)

On a large enough sample set, correlation implies a relation other than chance, and thus should be investigated. Otherwise you can keep screaming "Correlation is not causation" at every piece of data every produced and try to claim that we can never claim results.

After all, if I state that "Each time a plant is deprived of water and sunlight it dies.", stating "Correlation is not causation" is complete nonsense. We've observed over a large enough sample set that yes, in this case correlation damn well IS causation. Effectively, your only argument here should be whether or not the sample size is large enough.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847121)

Again, wrong. Learn you history before opening your mouth.

There was porn on betamax. It was a violation of an agreement with sony, but it did happen. Had Sony not had there dumb ass licensing agreements and fee's, there would have been more. Of course I could argue that is Sony did that, betamax would ahve won. Then you would be using your hind sight to say the port 'predicted' beta would win.

There is porn on HD-DVD.
I have both.

The porn industry gets it more then the main stream movie industry does as far as getting your entrainment out their.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846265)

Imagine streaming video so clear you can actually sense the actresses' emotional issues!

I thought that's what prostitution was for?

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846303)

Imagine streaming video so clear you can actually sense the actresses' emotional issues!

That would be the end of porn. I don't even want to imagine the kind of fucked-up psyche that leads one to a career in porn.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846971)

What's fucked up about a career in porn, other than the obvious?

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847167)

Lets see:
Heavy drug use is rampant AND expected.
People drawn to that industry are usually screwed up emotionally.

I'm not against the Porn industry, but it ahs problems.

That said, as it become more mainstream it will draw people less screwed up. What the industry really needs is a union.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846743)

Being someone who works at a porn company with multiple dedicated lines buried under the ocean, I can say this is very true. We test all the equipment we have to the limits.

I worked for a lot of mom and pop companies that thought they had problems.

We are pretty much a dedicated Foundry and Cisco debugging team.

When a single server gets over 10,000 hits a second (yes, second, not minute) - it tends to stress your equipment.

Times that by a few hundred servers and you get the idea.

I used to deal with simple PHP and Apache issues before. Performance? Was never an issue.

Now half our stuff is written in heavily optimized C, our kernels are heavily tweaked and even Squid isn't fast enough to keep up.

We even have our own custom caching software.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846833)

Imagine streaming video so clear you can actually sense the actresses' emotional issues!

Not to mention all the scar-tissue from aesthetic surgery and skin ravaged by too much make-up. High-resolution could be a bit of a problem for some; thankfully they are making improvements to CGI every year.

Re:That's an aweful lot of porn. (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846597)

funny thing...I was thinking that exact thing when I first read it...that and...I need to get a bigger hard drive. Also..."damn it....I just upgraded my home network to gigabit"

either way...reminds me of that video on *tube...you know the "For PORN" song.

I just upgraded to gigabit ethernet last year. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847387)

My CPUs, displays, hard drives and network keep getting faster, getter, faster, stronger, (no apologies to "Datf Punk",) but this is one hell of a jump in performance.

Damn.

At least I can't upgrade my eyes, brains (and right hand. :-)

Lasers? Them's some fast sharks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26845665)

This brings new meaning to the word "terabite"!

sweet (4, Funny)

_avs_007 (459738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845675)

Now I can finally get started on building my holodeck.

What value? (5, Funny)

pig-power (1069288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845711)

Tera ethernet... 5-25 gig monthly caps... "I used my monthly cap in 31.65 seconds..UH O..."

Re:What value? (1, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845851)

Tera ethernet... 5-25 gig monthly caps... "I used my monthly cap in 31.65 seconds..UH O..."

That would mean the telco companies actually decided to give us enough throughput. Sure, it'll work well on a LAN when they eventually deploy it, but unless if you have fiber coming to your house and all the way to where you're trying to grab that episode of Desperate Housewives from it will not go that fast. You also have to account for your neighbor who is addicted to porn and downloads it constantly seeding at 100% for days on end.

Re:What value? (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845887)

You also have to account for your neighbor who is addicted to porn and downloads it constantly seeding at 100% for days on end.

Hey, don't talk about me like that when I'm not around ;)

Re:What value? (3, Funny)

michrech (468134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846645)

You also have to account for your neighbor who is addicted to porn and downloads it constantly seeding at 100% for days on end.

Hey, don't talk about me like that when I'm not around ;)

Only two minutes from OP to reply -- You type pretty fast for only having one hand available!

Re:What value? (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846231)

Speaking of caps, any Comcast customers here who have run up against to or close to the ceiling?

I think if two companies are in the same market then one of them will eventually blink by doing actual network upgrades to get customers from the other company. Of course that's assuming they want to make money by doing work and not raising rates.

Re:What value? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846273)

Speaking of caps, any Comcast customers here who have run up against to or close to the ceiling?

I think if two companies are in the same market then one of them will eventually blink by doing actual network upgrades to get customers from the other company. Of course that's assuming they want to make money by doing work and not raising rates.

I've never come close to hitting my cap and I am a "power user." I also don't have an HDTV or a computer to stream HD from.

Re:What value? (1)

lordharsha (1101875) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845991)

Not in Australia

Terabit ethernet, govt filter, dialup speeds

5-25 gig is more than enough

(That's probably a bit dramatic, but I think you get the point)

Re:What value? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846157)

Actually, 1 Terabit/s = 125GByte/s. So that 25GB cap would take... Wait for it... 0.2 seconds of continuous downloading :)

Then again, by the time bandwidth like that is cheap enough for us, it'll be cheap for the telcos as well, and we'll probably be moaning about the petabyte bandwidth caps on our $20/mo plans.

Re:What value? (2, Informative)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846513)

Well, it would only take .2 seconds if the sending server was serving you up packets that fast. Somehow I doubt you would get maximum throughput speed. I know I never hit the full 100 Mb speed of my network when connecting to a server on the net.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26845715)

Think of the HD Porn! (we all know porn's the real reason for improving networking... ;-))

Re:Obligatory (1)

LUH 3418 (1429407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845975)

You obviously don't watch much, HD Porn is already available!

Star Trek solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26845829)

"The solution involves a photonic chip that uses laser light for switching signals, and a form of the exotic material type, chalcogenide, or arsenic trisulfide."
Very Star-Trekkie
Yes, and by reversing the polarity of the anti-matter heisenberg compensators, we can flufenog the grapstitle.

Seriously, though... I enjoy any solution that uses "photonic" anything and "arsenic trisulfide" anything. Cool

Re:Star Trek solutions? (2, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845943)

...I enjoy any solution that uses "photonic" anything and "arsenic trisulfide" anything. Cool

Interestingly, it conjured an image in my mind that is a mix of baby-formula and pesticides.

Re:Star Trek solutions? (4, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846545)

Actually, that is a new Chinese product where the pesticide IS the baby formula. Now with more melamine flavor!

Re:Star Trek solutions? (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846739)

In TrekSpeak, Pesticide sounds strangely Ferengi. But I also have to admit reading the two compounds and thinking: "Holy smyte, where can I get tickets to that!" Maybe the arsenic was a giveaway.

Re:Star Trek solutions? (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846179)

Dude, Star Trek technology (from TNG onwards) was based on optronics, not photonics.

Re:Star Trek solutions? (1)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846299)

Optronics is a sub-field of photonics.

Re:Star Trek solutions? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846829)

I'm going out on a limb here, but I am guessing you have never gotten laid.

Too early? (2, Insightful)

NotPenny'sBoat (1475835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845875)

Tbps ethernet seems a bit early. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the average read on a SATA somewhere around 5 Gbps?

Re:Too early? (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845929)

I think 3 Gbps is closer to the norm.

Re:Too early? (1)

Glonoinha (587375) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846647)

Sustained real world throughput for SATA drives is somewhere in the 500Mbps range - that's 60 Megabytes per second for single-threaded sustained reads or writes. Mix it up a little by having multiple applications access the drive at the same time and throughput can drop a full order of magnitude (in the range of 6 Megabytes per second.)

Given that, yes TerE is serious overkill for anything you are not already using (and continually saturating) GigE for. I'd say about the only situation where TerE would really help is for setting up a single dedicated machine with a MASSIVE shared ramdrive, and having other machines use that ramdrive as if it were local. Actually the more I consider it, that would be a damn fine use of TerE, and a good way to improve performance in computer clusters working on shared solution programming.

Re:Too early? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846769)

Unless your shared storage solution was absurdly large TbE is still going to be overkill. Even 10GbE is difficult to sustain without half a rack full of machines. 40GbE is still considered overkill for pretty much anything outside of an internet backbone link. TbE is more bandwidth than you can handle.

Re:Too early? (1)

NotPenny'sBoat (1475835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845945)

I mean, wouldn't that be like using a firehose as a straw? Tons of speed, but what could you actually do with it?

Re:Too early? (2, Insightful)

norkakn (102380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846071)

Let 1000 people drink?

Re:Too early? (2, Informative)

norkakn (102380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845973)

10 Gbps is already normal in server rooms. OC-768 is in the wild at around 40 Gbs. 100 Gbs is definitely around in labs, but I'm not sure if any of it is retail yet.

SATA doesn't have to be very fast, because a single hard drive isn't very fast.

Re:Too early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846873)

10GbE isn't all that common in server rooms at all. The price and compatibility issues make it prohibitive. 100GbE is still a long way off anything like an actual product. The best you'll do in a "LAN" at the moment is something like QDR Infiniband, which isn't cheap and is pretty specialised.

Yes I do work for a 10GbE vendor.

Re:Too early? (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845979)

If you have, say, a bundle of fiber running across the Pacific that would cost you 9,334 bazillion dollars and a battle with the giant enemy crab just to upgrade; being able to increase its capacity just by upgrading the hardware on each end is a very attractive proposition. This applies, to a lesser degree, in all but short run situations.

This isn't exactly destined for workstations in the near future(heck, neither is 10GigE, and that is more or less commodity-off-the-shelf stuff by now); but there are applications where higher speed per fiber could well be desirable.

Re:Too early? (1)

ouachiski (835136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846503)

It wouldn't be just replacing equipment at the ends, you have the repeaters to that would need to be upgraded.

Re:Too early? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846987)

No, with modern repeaters, that is not necessary. The repeaters are pure optical amplifiers that don't care how the signal is modulated. Only the end equipment needs to be sophisticated to do the fine-grained wave-division multiplexing - so you don't need to pull up the repeaters to upgrade the capacity. It's really quite neat. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier [wikipedia.org]

Re:Too early? (4, Interesting)

LoRdTAW (99712) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846057)

I suppose you forgot about internet back bone links. Terabit Ethernet should hopefully enable Tier 1 ISP's to provide really fat pipes to ISP's so we can finally get more bandwidth. The bigger the backbones the faster our broadband can be. Well at least that's my fantasy. 100mbit boradband should be cake walk with tubes that fat.

Re:Too early? (1)

NotPenny'sBoat (1475835) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846193)

This is true, I wasn't thinking of the back bones. Now I feel silly.

Re:Too early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846343)

You shouldn't feel too silly. The fiber used to run the cross-oceanic backbones has been around a while. It's not clear that any early introduction of Tbps over fiber will be able to run on those links.

Re:Too early? (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846307)

This is no different then 10Gig Ethernet. Your not using this for Desktop, but in large ISP backbones to handle traffic. I'm sure this is years away from practical use even in there however.

Wake me up when Cisco offers 1TB Blades.

Re:Too early? (2, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846453)

The article talks about using DWDM [wikipedia.org] to basically multiplex multiple 40Gbps wavelengths on the same fiber. Separating out the wavelengths at the other end is the part where the speed limitation seems to be. 40Gbps has been around for awhile, and so has DWDM.

Re:Too early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26846941)

Ok, so lets expand a bit here. Instead of a connection to 1 machine imagine this is the uplink sitting in front of a data-center with 5000 machines all sending individual streams to 500,000 people at once.

All-natural ingredients... (3, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845877)

"...a form of the exotic material type, chalcogenide, or arsenic trisulfide.

Whew, for a minute there I was worried we were going to use some hazardous materials.

Re:All-natural ingredients... (4, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845989)

But its got what networks crave, its got electrolytes.

Re:All-natural ingredients... (1)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846031)

Actually materials like that are used in semiconductors all the time. Gallium-Arsenide is a popular doping material in fact. There is a lot more arsenic in your computer right now than you expect. As long as you're not eating it, everything is fine.

Content Filtering (4, Funny)

El Torico (732160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845881)

Too bad my bullshit detector only operates at about 500 words per minute.

usefull for offline storage... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845893)

...of the entire internets. just right click the network icon, select "save as" and name the file. Wait 30 seconds for the entire internets to download.

Re:usefull for offline storage... (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846979)

Sorry to ruin the joke, but on a serious note: With 1 Terabit/sec and 30 seconds, you might be able to download a millionth of the Internet.

Toxicity Potential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26845939)

Aren't Arsenic compounds toxic? And aren't we (globally) trying to move away from exposing the environment to yet more toxins?

I am assuming that the photonic chip uses crystalline Arsenic Trisulfide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_trisulfide) "Crystalline As2S3 however tends to oxidize on the surface, forming a layer of toxic arsenic trioxide."

I would love to hear from those more knowledgeable about these kinds of substances to understand if there would be any potential threat to the environment.

Re:Toxicity Potential (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846065)

Well, this tech certainly solves this guy's [slashdot.org] rat problem.

Feasable? (1)

mail2345 (1201389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845947)

The article never mentioned the economic feasibility.
I highly doubt that for now that this will be cheap.
How much does this arsenic trisulfide stuff cost, anyway?

Re:Feasable? (1)

baldusi (139651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845997)

The article actually says that they've developed a process to make it on CMOS factories, although with different materials. So the potential is there to relatively "cheap" solution. Just remember that this is for backbone applications, where you count cost at thousands or tens of thousands per port.

Re:Feasable? (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846393)

My question was how they are going to get permission to mount this stuff on fire hydrants? Seems pretty expensive.

My Understanding (1)

baldusi (139651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26845957)

The interesting part is that they have developed a material to reduce the "fiber" needed to demultiplex the signals from several meters to just 5cm (~2in.). And a process to easily manufacture that. Apparently this would require extreme parallelism since each drop could only handle 10Gbps. I would be very interested if someone coul explain the particularities of Optical Time Division Multiplexing. I failed to foun any references and thus I'm no aware of the difference with simple TDM.

Still needs work (5, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846033)

The solution involves a photonic chip that uses laser light for switching signals, and a form of the exotic material type, chalcogenide, or arsenic trisulfide."

Once you have the photonic chip installed, you will need to realign the deflector shield to output a graviton pulse through the arsenic trisulfide to create an anti-tachyon pulse which will modulate itself based upon the resonant frequency of the transport medium, thus allowing for longer distance transmittal of data than is currently possible.

Granted, it will take 15 years and research team of a hundred to complete, but it is doable.

Re:Still needs work (2, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846115)

Seven is that you?

Re:Still needs work (4, Funny)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846317)

Keep dreaming, it's La Forge.

Re:Still needs work (1)

Rick Bentley (988595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846155)

Once you have the photonic chip installed, you will need to realign the deflector shield to output a graviton pulse through the arsenic trisulfide to create an anti-tachyon pulse which will modulate itself based upon the resonant frequency of the transport medium, thus allowing for longer distance transmittal of data than is currently possible.

Granted, it will take 15 years and research team of a hundred to complete, but it is doable.

No, they can do it in the middle of a pitched battle and before the next commercial.

Re:Still needs work (1)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846203)

But they'll forget about it within a week.

Re:Still needs work (4, Interesting)

eggboard (315140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846611)

Okay, I'm the author of the Ars Technica piece, and that make me laugh.

Talking to the researcher, Eggleton, made my head slightly explode, because he's looking 5 to 20 years into the future with the research he's on top of today.

But they have practical devices that show that the stuff can be hand-built, and that's what blows my mind.

The future isn't in plastics -- it's in glass!

Re:Still needs work (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846847)

The future isn't in plastics -- it's in glass!

You almost had me for a minute, but then I got to thinking, what do you think they're going to ship all that glass in?

Re:Still needs work (1)

eggboard (315140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846943)

This is a funny day at Slashdot. +3 guffaw points.

Actually, I was thinking chalcogenide could be a good new name for a mixed drink. Maybe grenadine, liquid oxygen, and something fizzy.

Re:Still needs work (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847275)

Granted, it will take 15 years and research team of a hundred to complete, but it is doable.

See that Borg ship out there? You have 5 minutes if you don't want to be a member of its crew.

Re:Still needs work (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26847385)

You have ten minutes, Mr. La Forge. Picard out.

Do The Math,.. (1)

GHynson (1216406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846339)

And the cost to wire a typical house? TbE cards = $30k each F/O Cable = $325k ISP F/O = $12k per Month Total = $367k plus your first born. No thanks, I'll stick to my 10MbE ISP. for $25 month

Re:Do The Math,.. (3, Funny)

Ragzouken (943900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26846479)

It's a pity that technology like this never gets cheaper.

The kind of networking I want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26847117)

I will explain what kind of networking I want. But in order to do so, I will first have to define some math operations.
 
Astute readers know what addition is, and that multiplication is repeated addition and exponentiation is repeated multiplication. There is an additional operation, less well known, called tetration, which is repeated exponentiation.
 
I do not understand why, when mathematicians often want to define something in the most general form possible, nobody has, yet, developed a universal operator that allows you to take this repetition to any level you would like. This is why I am about to define such an operator.
 
Suppose that [1] is taken to mean addition, [2] is taken to mean multiplication, [3] is taken to mean exponentiation, [4] is taken to mean tetration. Now we can stick any integer greater or equal to 1 inside square brackets and use that as our operator. So:

  • 5 [1] 2 = 5 + 2 = 7
  • 5 [2] 2 = 5 * 2 = 10
  • 5 [3] 2 = 5^2 = 25

. The value of 5 [29] 2 is obvious and left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Those familiar with mathematics know about factorials, denoted by n!. This is the product of all integers less than or equal to n. Now that we have introduced all the prerequisites, let's talk about what kind of networking I want.
 
I want googolplex! [googolplex!] googolplex! yottabytes per planck unit of time. When you can give me networking like that, I'll be happy.

That's one bit every trillionth of a second. (1)

JoeD (12073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26847289)

In one trillionth of a second, light travels .3 millimeters.

So the receiver has to be able to not only detect that bit, but process it in time for the next bit that's right behind it.

Pretty impressive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?