Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Article is wrong. Transceivers do this already. (Score 2) 47

The article is misleading. Transmission and reception on the same "frequency" is done today. However, there's some other "discriminator" in the signal. Either modulation method, phase, shift, orientation, or "something" is different so that the receive and transmit don't collide.

Actually, bidirectional, simultaneous transmissions using exactly the same polarisation, modulation etc have been possible for a long time, using circulators/hybrids and echo cancelers. I imagine they had limited succes because typically the power difference between transmitted and received signal is too high for the echo canceler to deal with, but in theory, this "holy grail" is certainly possible.

Apart from that, as you mention correctly, the novelty here is the size.

Comment: bizarre definition (Score 2) 47

By definition its not full duplex if its using a shared channel to transmit and receive.

If you define full duplex in your own bizarre way, then, yes this is not full duplex. The more common definition, however, is that transmitting and receiving can be done simultaneously. And that is exactly what is going on here. Obviously using a shared channel, otherwise it would not be news. And even that is nothing new. Echo canceling and circulators have been existing for ages. The novelty here is the size of integration.

Comment: Re:Sad For My Gender (Score 1) 369

by elgatozorbas (#49069479) Attached to: Two New Male Birth Control Chemicals In Advanced Stages
You are not the only man on /. who respects women, but that is not the issue. It is possible to 1) respect woman and 2) not want to have childern 3) welcome new birth control methods.

Typically my ex GFs and I used a condom until we trusted each other enough to go for another contraceptive, which typically was The Pill. If she would have objected to this, for whatever reason, I would have been happy to keep using condoms. No sweat. Respect. Responsability, no problem. On the other hand, "forgetting" to take a pill, getting pregnant, not letting me know on time, not taking any other steps (morning after pill, whatever) wouldn't be very respectful either and would indeed piss me off.

Comment: Re:Speechless (Score 1, Flamebait) 49

by elgatozorbas (#49056183) Attached to: Five Glorious Years of Sun Images In a Four-Minute Video

Columbus was probably much smarter than your average lad, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to undertake such a voyage.

He may have been much smarter than your average lad, but at the same time -if you pardon my French- Columbus was an arrogant idiot who went against the common (and correct) knowledge of those days by underestimating the circumference of the Earth by a factor of four. Afterwards he was hailed as the discoverer of America and blabla, but the matter of fact is that he would have drowned if it hadn't been for this random unpredicted piece of land (*) in the middle of the ocean.

(*) Actualy middle-agers made some predictions about undiscovered pieces of land that "should exist" based on some symmetry or whatever religious logic they used. This was not the case for America, though: Columbus really underestimated the voyage and thougt he had arrived in India. The fool!

Comment: Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score 1) 894

by elgatozorbas (#48822311) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

Well I think that's part of what "respect" means - you don't push your own religious / atheist beliefs in someone else's face when you know they have a different viewpoint.

Publishing cartoons in a magazine one needs to buy in order to see them is not quite "pushing beliefs in someone else's face".

Comment: Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score 2, Insightful) 894

by elgatozorbas (#48820557) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression
"Francis [...] said religion can never be used to justify violence."

He doesn't say the killings were okay. He just says that people shouldn't mock other's religion. Which, first of all, makes sense since he is the fucking pope and secondly it may be good for his P.R. with the muslem community. If the other church leaders/imams/whatever are denouncing the satirical cartoons, what impression would Francis give by saying "oh well, no problem for me because I am far more forgiving than the Muslems". Sometimes one has to side a bit with the "competition" in order not to piss them off.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...