Public phone. The trick doesn't work anymore, because they now damp the hook switch.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\\|/ \\|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
You're either trolling, or extremely stupid. Either way, the solution is:
*PLONK!*
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\\|/ \\|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
She IS stupid .
It would surely be much nicer if equipment at both ends of the link used just a single pair to communicate in both directions, full duplex, too. If the plain old telephone system can do it, why not data communications equipment?
No distinction between DCE or DTE, only one single pair of wire, only one type of cheap cable, cheap and simple connectors, no fuss, no confusion.
Maybe it's this way because it was designed by a committee?
Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman wrote:.
No, because it was designed to work, and meet the requirements at the time.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I will not see your messages. If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Of course it works. That's not the point. The question was about why we don't come up with an interconnect that doesn't require cross-over cables. It's so nice, so simple.
As for requirements; We all know that 'requirements' are really a mere description of the way the prototype behaved the day we got it to work. ;-)
Jeroen Belleman (Standards are merely intended to cripple competition.)
Consider the speed limitations of such a system.
Even fiber optic transmission (transception)has two paths.
I'll bet that it has to do with the speed of the wire limitations at the time.
This is a question for Floyd Davidson.
No. The original post asked why we don't have an interconnect that _only_ uses cross-over cables. The question has been answered on both the historical basis of a clear distinction between "transmitting" and "receiving" equipment and ease of manufacture of straight through cables.
The modern trend has been to use a bidirectional interface such as USB but this is necessarily slower than a similar interface using three wires instead of two and a cross-over cable. Nobody has actually answered the question in the current context.
Ah yes, that was indeed the question.
I suppose you are thinking of half-duplex traffic. It's quite possible to have full-duplex traffic on a single pair of wires. There would then be no speed penalty.
Jeroen Belleman
Actually, there WOULD then be a speed issue.
RS485?
RS232 was the solution to a different problem (how to conect modems to terminals)
Oh, that's very helpful. Would you mind motivating that statement just a little?
Jeroen Belleman
Just because you have not seen bidirectional full duplex on a single fiber does not mean that it cannot exist. I have used such devices. They typically use wavelength division multiplexing. .
-- Nothing new there, it\'s the same as frequency division multiplexing. The point is, though, for a medium of propagation with a finite bandwidth, two channels can only exploit up to half the bandwidth each if they\'re both active at the same time. Or 90/10 or 60/40 or whatever, as long as the bandwidth of the medium isn\'t exceeded. JF
EHHHH! Wrong ASSumption AGAIN, dumbfuckKK!
I NEVER once said that it didn't or couldn't, you RETARDED, PRESUMPTUOUS FUCK!
Good for you, idiot. The remark was about what is in place and in use NOW!
No shit. I knew what OC-96 was before you even knew what an optical fiber was.
A San Diego company just recently got 'near wire speed' (unheard of) on the new 10Gb/s standards being developed.
They got 8.5Gb/s out of it. That is better than anything current. Most of the current stuff has far too much overhead. We are lucky if Gigabit Ethernet can push 600Mb/s on a good day.
They did it with a Cell Broadband Engine CPU.
There will be Cell processors in our future.
Hell, if we make it past 12-20-2012 things will actually look good.
Maybe we'll close off the borders and kick some illegal immigrant asses, and then clean up the gang problems too!
Maybe the horses will ride after all!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.