×

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!

New Data Transmission Speed Record

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the sixty-dvd-minus dept.

262

An anonymous reader writes "Gizmag is reporting that a team of German and Japanese scientists have collaborated to shatter the world record for data transmission speed. From the article: "By transmitting a data signal at 2.56 terabits per second over a 160-kilometer link (equivalent to 2,560,000,000,000 bits per second or the contents of 60 DVDs) the researchers bettered the old record of 1.28 terabits per second held by a Japanese group. By comparison, the fastest high-speed links currently carry data at a maximum 40 Gbit/s, or around 50 times slower."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

262 comments

Digg Wins (-1, Offtopic)

seanduffy (930895) | about 8 years ago | (#14996694)

I hate to admit it, but Digg is starting to overshadow Slashdot (though Digg comments are horrible). This story was on Digg a few days ago. In fact, if you look at Digg's homepage right now, you can almost be certain that one of these stories will appear on Slashdot in the next few days. Sad. But true.

Re:Digg Loses (3, Insightful)

imunfair (877689) | about 8 years ago | (#14996718)

Precisely why I read slashdot and fark, but not digg.

Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.

Fark has the time sensitive or humorous news, with clever or funny comments.

Digg is somewhere in the middle, with the immature comments or spam I can find in an AIM chat room if I need it.

Re:Digg Loses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996731)

Re:Digg Loses (1)

mabinogi (74033) | about 8 years ago | (#14996742)

you completely missed the point.

Besides, if Digg is so much better, what the hell are you doing wasting time here?

Someone might post a story to Digg while you're here, and you'll be 3 seconds slower getting to it!!!!1!

Re:Digg Loses (0, Flamebait)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | about 8 years ago | (#14996792)

Yes, but when I read both Slashdot and Digg, I only have to look at one /. page, but having looked at the front two pages of Digg a couple of times the last two days, I totally missed that story. Digg may have a lot of these stories first, but sometimes they don't stay on your front page. I have to do that diggall thing, and sort through lots of crap to get to the new stories.

Re:Digg Loses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996782)

Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.

R O F L M A O... Thanks for the laugh, I needed that..

Re:Digg Loses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996899)

Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.
Ironically, that is quite possibly the least insightful or interesting comment on Slashdot...or anywhere for that matter.

Take a few minutes to stand back and actually read that awful streak of feces colloquially referred to on Slashdot as a "comment". Then, while wondering why the "extrans" feature doesn't work, why you can't edit comments, and why Slashdot's backend only supports 7-bit ASCII, poke your eyes out.

P.S. "Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down.".

HUNT THEM DOWN?! Oh yeah, like everyone on the planet knows how to "hunt them down" with nothing but a couple of garbage hashes. But nice try. You win the prize [funfreepages.com] , Slashdot.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996955)

Slashdot has the non-time sensitive, most interesting news - with insightful or interesting comments.
 
Mod parent +5 FUNNY

Re:Digg Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996748)

It's not the stories that make slashdot that were also (already) on digg that make me prefer slashdot, it's the stories that don't make slashdot but do make digg.

The two sites are different. They have different communities, even if there is overlap. They both deserve to exist.

If your idea of what makes this site worth visiting is how fast the stories make it to the front page then I invite you to go view digg and shut the f**k up about it.

Digg Wins, But Only for Volume of Articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996749)

Digg is a site dedicated to quantity of links, not quality of discussion. Looking at the general comments posted on any gived article, one could easily discern the individual classes: the technology elitists, the users with a preschool level grasp of grammar and spelling, the flamewarriors, and, most annoying, the anti-digg users. On /., however, a relevant, meaningful discussion will almost always result in response to any given article. I'm a frequent user of both sites; digg satisfies my F5 content cravings, while /. satisfies my understanding of broader issues(as well as my appreciation of good humor; digg users lack any vestige of it). For example, the inevitable discussion resulting from this article will probably not just be about the technological feat itself, but its applications to society, economics, and science in general. The digg discussion's highest rated thread related to, what else, how much pr0n you could download with the link.

Re:Digg Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996787)

Sean Duffy! Why, your music is all over campus!

Re:Digg Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996856)

Hmm. So there at least 3 people at Columbia reading slashdot around 2 AM on a Saturday night. This leads me to 2 questions.

1) How cool are we? (rhetorical)

and

2) How many others are there?

Re:Digg Wins (0, Offtopic)

seanduffy (930895) | about 8 years ago | (#14996901)

haha, who is this? and yes, why are there so many columbia ppl on so late?

Re:Digg Wins (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14997014)

are you gay? you look pretty cute

Re:Digg Wins (0, Offtopic)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 8 years ago | (#14996795)

"I hate to admit it, but Digg is starting to overshadow Slashdot (though Digg comments are horrible)."

Is the Digg offering rewards to ppl who spam it on Slashdot or something? Digg is better than Slashdot. Whoop-de-fuck.

yes indeed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996803)

fuck slashdot, it is so fucking stupid

ROR, the captcha says "stupidly"

Re:Digg Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996959)

why do you even compare it to Digg ?,and the stories are same you say,perhaps you prefer /. writing fictious articles about events that have not occured ?./. is here for the discussion,you are literally comparing apples and oranges,don't ever compare /. to digg again!,the next time you do that,i might throw a chair at you !.

Re:Digg Wins (2, Informative)

adolfojp (730818) | about 8 years ago | (#14996977)

Digg is great for learning of new technologies. Slashdot is great because of its discussions. They are complementary websites. I don't see digg replacing slashdot anytime soon, yet, I am glad that digg is there to fill my need of having "as many tech news as possible" available.

Trying to have good discussions in Digg is futile because of its moderation system. And whenever discussion worthy news are available they are quickly buried by ten articles of what someone somewhere might have said about the color of the new Nintendo console.

Cheers,
Adolfo

1st post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996701)

How much is that in Volkswagen Bugs?

2.56 Terabits = ? (4, Funny)

mattydont (849321) | about 8 years ago | (#14996710)

Anti-Slashdoting for a webhost.

Re:2.56 Terabits = ? (3, Informative)

bioteq (809524) | about 8 years ago | (#14996720)

Not true, actually.

Most slashdotting happens because of hardware issues, not upstream bandwidth.

Although, 2tb of bandwidth would be freakin' amazing for some stuff for a botnet to get ahold of..

Quick! Everyone call up the nearest script kiddie and get to work!

Terabits per second!? (4, Funny)

SillySnake (727102) | about 8 years ago | (#14996714)

What kind of measurement is that? Why can't we use something everyone understands like u-haul trucks full of dvd's driving 100 kilometers per fortnight*10^(-6)?
For the uninitiated, that's a microfortnight.

Re:Terabits per second!? (5, Funny)

onwardknave (533210) | about 8 years ago | (#14996743)

A measurement everyone understands? Like how much porn?

Re:Terabits per second!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996813)

Especially since this was reported by Gizmag ;p

Since new porn is being added to the net at more than 3 terabits per second, you could never download it all using this technology.

Re:Terabits per second!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996853)

Since new porn is being added to the net at more than 3 terabits per second, you could never download it all using this technology.

Maybe not, but I can damn well try.

Re:Terabits per second!? (1, Funny)

zerocool^ (112121) | about 8 years ago | (#14996746)


Yeah, I want to know how fast that is in Libraries-Of-Congress-per-second.

//40 rods to the hogshead...

Re:Terabits per second!? (0)

chris_eineke (634570) | about 8 years ago | (#14996786)

Uh, what? Don't go all SI on my butt, young-un... can you put it in yards of libary-of-congresses per nano-fortnight-hour?

Re:Terabits per second!? (1)

ttroutma (552162) | about 8 years ago | (#14996896)

How about, GigaHour, for how many gigs a link might under ideal circumstances transfer in hour?
For some reason this makes sense to me. Home users could then buy bandwidth in increments like 1 MegaMinute.

How much in terms of (2, Funny)

anandpur (303114) | about 8 years ago | (#14996719)

How much it is in terms of "a station wagon full of magtape" or Library of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_units _of_measurement#Books_and_Bible [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strange_units _of_measurement#Library_of_Congress [wikipedia.org]

Re:How much in terms of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996804)

I would say its approx 1 Lpm (Library of Congress / minute)

So, that's OC-What? (0)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#14996721)

Someone have the conversion factor handy?

-jcr

Re:So, that's OC-What? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 8 years ago | (#14996741)

Ah, found it. This works out to approximately OC 49,382.

Wow.

-jcr

Re:So, that's OC-What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996745)

OC-51782 rounding up to the nearest "OC" ;)

Re:So, that's OC-What? (3, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | about 8 years ago | (#14996929)

Three different answers for what boils down to a grade school story problem. At least we know you three didn't cheat from each other.

in libraries of congress please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996724)

Why are they constantly doing these useless laboratory speed tests that never mean anything in the real world?

Hmm why is my turing test image "imbecile"...

Nothing ever makes it out of the lab (3, Insightful)

b00m3rang (682108) | about 8 years ago | (#14996739)

into the real world, right? Why are they developing nuclear pebble bed reactors in laboratories, when I can't buy one at the 7-11 yet?

Germans and Japanese? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996725)

So they're working together again, huh? Well, as we all know, history tends to repeat itself. Now we know why the Homeland Security Agency wants to be able to create secret meetings on a whim.

60 DVDs per second (4, Funny)

craXORjack (726120) | about 8 years ago | (#14996726)

(equivalent to 2,560,000,000,000 bits per second or the contents of 60 DVDs)

Wow, converting to MPAA units that's 300 years of jail time per second! Smokin!

I sense a great disturbance in the force (1)

LordEd (840443) | about 8 years ago | (#14996830)

... as if millions of RIAA execs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (3, Interesting)

b00m3rang (682108) | about 8 years ago | (#14996727)

and storage in KB? It's not like we measure radio waves in cycles per second and sound waves in cycles per 8 seconds. What's the advantage?

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (3, Insightful)

blazer1024 (72405) | about 8 years ago | (#14996757)

One reason is because it's serial data generally, and you don't know exactly how many of those bits are going to be data.. (you could have start or stop bits, etc)... but I don't know the details of that, so I'll just mention my other possible reason.

It's that throughput is generally what actually matters when sending data. In other words, that how much actual payload is being send, minus any overhead. If you've got a decent amount of overhead, your actual throughput might be a bit less. So it makes more sense to talk about bandwidth in bits per second, so as not to confuse it with actual throughput.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 8 years ago | (#14996772)

Kilobits sounds faster to the masses, as the number is eight times bigger. My 4Mbit line sounds pretty pathetic when called the 512Kbyte line that it is. Of course, it would make a stronger case if it was an 8Mbit/1Mbyte line so the unit prefix is the same, but you get the idea.

In short: marketing.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

Tezkah (771144) | about 8 years ago | (#14996780)

Mainly ISP marketing/competition, its much more impressive to offer an 8 megabit connection instead of a 1 megabyte connection... Joe User would pick 3Mb over 1MB because 3>1, even though the 1MB connection would be much faster.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996794)

bandwidth [wikipedia.org] is derived from an analog concept of frequency. it makes sense that cycles per second = bits per second

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 8 years ago | (#14996802)


My best guess is that it goes back to when networks were first being built and the size of a byte varied a lot more than today. Everyone agreed as to what a bit was, so it was a consistent measure, instead of some people saying a byte is 8 bits, others 11, others 9, etc.

Then just the inertia of moving to a more sane unit, perhaps combined with the marketing ideas others mentioned.

I don't know if that's the case, but it seems like a reasonable guess. I doubt it's solely marketspeak, because it's used all over the place in networking, not just promo stuff.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

teknomage1 (854522) | about 8 years ago | (#14996852)

I'm fairly certain you're confusing bytes and blocks or words. I think bytes have always been 8 bits.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996909)

Ah, no. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] -
"Byte: A contiguous sequence of a fixed number of bits (binary digits). In recent years, the use of a byte to mean 8 bits is nearly ubiquitous."

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (4, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | about 8 years ago | (#14996920)

You think wrong. Some quotes from the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry:

In recent years, the use of a byte to mean 8 bits is nearly ubiquitous

Meaning even today it's not universal.

A contiguous sequence of binary bits in a serial data stream, such as in modem or satellite communications, or from a disk-drive head, which is the smallest meaningful unit of data. These bytes might include start bits, stop bits, or parity bits, and thus could vary from 7 to 12 bits to contain a single 7-bit ASCII code.

Here I think is the most revealing definition for the discussion in the present context.

The eight-bit byte is often called an octet in formal contexts such as industry standards, as well as in networking and telecommunication, in order to avoid any confusion about the number of bits involved.

Another site [uiowa.edu] says that:

* Pre-1965, and including the IBM 701, bytes were almost always 6 bits, though they weren't called that much then, but rather characters.

* 9 bits were sometimes used

* The PDP-6, PDP-10, and DECsystem 20 all supported changing the byte size with instructions from 1 to 36 bits (probably only some of those)

The latter reference, looking up the PDP-10 on Wikipedia, gives this quote:

Some aspects of the instruction set are still considered unsurpassed, most notably the "byte" instructions, which operated on arbitrary sized bit-fields (at that time a byte was not necessarily eight bits)

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996812)

probably because you are comparing transmission rate to storage capacity.

Do you measure sound waves in cycles per second and the CD it is stored on in cycles per second?... I think not.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

b00m3rang (682108) | about 8 years ago | (#14996832)

First off, that sentence doesn't even make sense. "Measure the CD in cycles per second"? What does that mean, exactly? And besides, it's not like there isn't a direct correlation between the two... 1KB will always equal 8Kb. Whether stored or transferred, a bit is a bit and a byte is a byte. First time, last time, every time.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996858)

Ok, I just HAD to reply to this after seeing all the people who seem to think that this is done purely as an ISP marketing ploy. WRONG!

When measuring the speed of data transmissions you have two factors, X and Y, data units and time. Most network links are serial data streams, meaning they can only transmit 1 bit at a time. This would make the unit of measurement on the X scale a single bit. The unit of time most people would use for the Y scale is 1 second. The speed of something is typically published in units per time, so in this case bits per second. Some data path ways are parrellel, moving one or more whole bytes (8 bits) at a time. In these cases it tends to make more sense to use bytes per second as there are actual full bytes being transmitted.

Storage is measured in full bytes because that is how we use the space, because we read or write in whole 8 bit chunks at a time. Storage is parrellel, networks are (mostly) serial.

If the concept of using bits or bytes for measurement was driven by marketing then don't you think hard drive manufacturers would use bits instead? That would always be a much larger number! But it's not marketing that determines which is used, bytes or bits, it's a matter of speaking in parrellel or serial data streams.

Re:Why is bandwidth measured in Kb (1)

edwdig (47888) | about 8 years ago | (#14996917)

Storage is measured in full bytes because that is how we use the space, because we read or write in whole 8 bit chunks at a time. Storage is parrellel, networks are (mostly) serial.

No we don't. Disks the smallest addressable unit of a disk is a sector. On most hard disks, a sector is 512 bytes (some are moving to 4096 in the near future). CD sectors are 2352 bytes (before sectors).

If the concept of using bits or bytes for measurement was driven by marketing then don't you think hard drive manufacturers would use bits instead? That would always be a much larger number! But it's not marketing that determines which is used, bytes or bits, it's a matter of speaking in parrellel or serial data streams.

Hard disk size measurement is driven by marketing. That's why the sizes are measured using base 10 units rather than base 2. Considering that the size of a hard disk must be a multiple of 512 bytes, it makes a lot more sense to use base 2 measurements. However, base 10 results in larger numbers, hence it gets used.

The most logical reason to use bits per second for raw bandwidth is because it is an unambiguous measurement. When you actually start to transmit data, you usually add in some combination of start, stop, and parity bits. These settings tend to be customized to suit the needs of the connection, and result in a different number of bits being necessary to transfer one byte. Think back to the old modem days when you'd have to set your modem to things like 8-N-1 or 7-E-1. Those settings change how many bits it takes to transfer one byte.

Actually it's 64 (1)

mattite (526549) | about 8 years ago | (#14996728)

According to the numbers given, the old record is exactly 64 times slower. Hmmm. About 50. Right. Even I'm not too lazy to use a calculator. Personally, I would have given a metric like DVDs per second (which in this case is a better approximation of 544).

Re:Actually it's 64 (1)

mattite (526549) | about 8 years ago | (#14996747)

Sorry, but my engrish is a bit messed up. I meant to compare the new record to the current fastest link available at 40 Gbps. Solly!

Re:Actually it's 64 (1)

miikrr (799637) | about 8 years ago | (#14997024)

2560000000000 (bits per second) / 8 (bits per byte) / 4670776934.4(bytes, approx. size of a dvd(4.35GB) = 68.5 DVD's. It's not that hard to come up with a more accurate comparison that the article stated, or to leave out the crucial fact that a bit and a byte are not equal as the above poster did.

I FUCKING TRANSFER MORE THAN THAT UP MY ASSHOLE (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996733)

PROPZ 2 GNAA FROM H3N

Use the Preview Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!Button! Check those URLs!

Re:I FUCKING TRANSFER MORE THAN THAT UP MY ASSHOLE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996768)

Goatse? Is that you?

shattered? ok but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996744)

ok, it shattered that record. but the male ejaculation has a genetic bandwidth of 8.4 x 10^6 GiB/s.

it'll be a while before they splatter that record.

(oh, and the scrambled word I have to type in to post this as an AC is "saturate"! yes indeed)

That's pretty slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996753)

Only 60 DVD's per second? Any modernized form of SNAP [notes.co.il] (PDF), say using a number of donkeys in parallel or even a fully mechanical equivalent (truck, jet), could beat that any day.

Re:That's pretty slow (5, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 8 years ago | (#14996989)

At 100Km/hour, a truck would require 1.6 hours * 60^2 seconds/hour = 5,760 seconds to travel 160 kilometers. At 60 DVDs/second, the truck would have to be carrying 5760*60 = 345,600 DVDs to have equivalent bandwidth. A typical DVD in a case is 14cm wide, 19cm tall, and 1.5cm thick, for a total volume of 399 cm^3 (lets round to 400cm^3). Therefore, the truck would have to have a cargo volume of 400cm^3 * 345,600 = 138,240,000cm^3, or 138.24m^3.

Now, typical intermodal containers (as used on big rig trucks) are 8.5' by 8.5' by 40', or 2890ft^3. Converted to metric, this is about 82m^3, which is less than the 138.24m^3 required.

In other words, no, a truck full of DVDs is NOT faster than this connection!*

*unless you put the DVDs on spindles instead of in cases.

And so it begins (3, Funny)

Darby (84953) | about 8 years ago | (#14996769)

Well folks, time to gear up.

We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate ;-)

 

Re:And so it begins (1)

GeorgeMcBay (106610) | about 8 years ago | (#14996867)


We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate ;-)


The Italians are already trying to find ways to use this technology to make the trains run on time.

Re:And so it begins (1)

slashdotmsiriv (922939) | about 8 years ago | (#14996894)

"We know what happens when the Germans and the Japanese collaborate ;-)"

Why do I have a feeling that the first company to not be able to adopt the new ultra-high-speed technology and effectively be pushed out of the market will be the French Alcatel?

Re:And so it begins (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 8 years ago | (#14996953)

Don't look now, but I think the French just preemptively surrendered.
This was shortly before the Italians announced their adoption of the new method. Which was shortly followed by their switch back to the Western standards.

sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996784)

it's sad that almost every comment so far is a unit or conversion joke, and they are all getting modded funny. in soviet russia, units measure old people.

who cares? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996799)

Who really cares about this when their personal internet is stuck at 4Mbps down/256Kbps up?

Re:who cares? (1)

queef_latina (847562) | about 8 years ago | (#14996913)

Why do you need more? So you can steal more movies?

Re:who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14997022)

"Why do you need more? So you can steal more movies?"

Yep, and laugh at the MPAA.

Not filling 1gb pipe (1, Insightful)

swpod (963634) | about 8 years ago | (#14996810)

I've done some checking of aggregate SAN bandwidth in the last few months, and for the most part companies are not even saturating their 2 gbit Fibre Channel links (for that matter, most could easily run with legacy 1 gbit gear). Even the inter-switch links are often crusing well below 2 gbit. Funny to note that the big push is to release 4 gbit gear, for what conceivable purpose I have no idea.

It just seems to me that the real issue is access time, not bandwidth, though kudos to this team for an essentially meaningless achievement.

Re:Not filling 1gb pipe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14996826)

Last time I checked... and I could be wrong here... there are no SAN fabrics that have nodes 160km apart. I'm really not sure why you related this to SAN switching setups, but this is about WAN configurations.

everybody needs this at home (1)

MarsDude (74832) | about 8 years ago | (#14996831)

for when you get this at your place :

http://www.onzin.nl/internetdownload/ [onzin.nl]

Re:everybody needs this at home (1)

Technician (215283) | about 8 years ago | (#14996872)

for when you get this at your place :
http://www.onzin.nl/internetdownload/ [onzin.nl] [onzin.nl]


The site could use more bandwidth. I'm sitting on an enterprise broadband connection, but could only manage dial-up speeds of 14.2KB/second from them. We must have slashdoted them.

Way cool... (2, Funny)

threedognit3 (854836) | about 8 years ago | (#14996843)

I'm calling my cable company to see if I can pay $25,000/month to get the data rate. Needless to say this will increase the downloads of my extremely intelligent blog.

Great Things Happen (1)

eAspenwood (815062) | about 8 years ago | (#14996868)

when the Germans and the Japanese unite...oh wait.... There's a french joke somewhere in here but I just can't pull it out at the moment... i give up. -- J.

Basic requirement soon enough. (2, Funny)

Funkcikle (630170) | about 8 years ago | (#14996892)

Vista will require this much bandwidth as a minimum, to download security patches and have them rendered in erotic 3D by the compulsory 4Tb graphics card, when it is released in THE YEAR 3000.

Try 10,000 Kilometers (1)

layer3switch (783864) | about 8 years ago | (#14996893)

The researcher assumes the transmission capacity on the large transoceanic traffic links will need to increase to between 50 and 100 terabits per second in ten to 20 years. "This kind of capacity will only be feasible with the new high-performance systems."

160 kilometers? large transoceanic traffic link? When 10,000 kilometers of non-repeated distance can be achieved, I'll be impressed. Until then it's nothing but a bragging right.

fiber optics (1)

planckscale (579258) | about 8 years ago | (#14996927)

"...researchers have now managed to squeeze more data into a single pulse by packing four, instead of the previous two, binary data states in a light pulse using phase modulation."

Is this similar to DDR memory where they pack info into the upward swing of the wave, and on the downward swing, as well as the troughs and peaks of the waves?

60 DVD:s per second... (5, Funny)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | about 8 years ago | (#14996932)

...and in related news, the spokesman for the MPAA is currently unable to comment due to suffering a heart attack.

What did they send? (1)

Whiteox (919863) | about 8 years ago | (#14996946)

"...transmitting a data signal at 2.56 terabits per second over a 160-kilometer link..."

Ok Amazing speed etc etc etc but what did they send?
Was it encrypted?
Was it DRMed???

In the name of... (1)

rupert0 (885882) | about 8 years ago | (#14996947)

porn.... the germans uploaded 30 dvd's of their famouse Scheiße porn, and the japanese uploaded 30 dvd's of their bukkake favorites

Re:In the name of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14997019)

"porn.... the germans uploaded 30 dvd's of their famouse Scheiße porn, and the japanese uploaded 30 dvd's of their bukkake favorites"

I am so not going to Google those words to find out what they mean... :-P

faster than ram (1)

pintomp3 (882811) | about 8 years ago | (#14996990)

i could be wrong, but isn't that like faster than the communications between parts in a computer including RAM? is there a computer that can feed that much data that fast?

The last mile... (0)

Tracy Reed (3563) | about 8 years ago | (#14996997)

...is all I care about anymore. A zillion bits per second in the lab or even in a backbone link doesn't do me a bit of good when my cablemodem has me restricted to 128k of upstream bandwidth. I just put together a killer computer system with more cpu, memory, RAM, and disk than I am likely to need anytime soon all for less than a kilobuck but decent bandwidth is still simply not available.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...