Slashdot Mirror
DIY Bluetooth Headset And Other Inventions
NETHED writes "Circuit Cellar has an blurb about a guy who obviously got sick of waiting for a cheap solution to the BlueTooth cellphone headset. So in true geek tradition, he rolled his own. Here is the description of the toy (which looks bulky as-is, but could be fixed w/ some refining). It actually didn't win any prizes in the PSoC contest, but you have to admit, its pretty cool. There are other honorable mentions like a poor man's O-scope to something that seems to attach to a moth and check its muscle movements. Neat and nerdy stuff for the circuit etching crowd."
And SciAm just ran an editorial lamenting the demise of DIY. I guess that these innovations need a higher profile if we are to encourage science and technology as interests for youth.
A cordless headset is really important too, since my cell phone is so BIG that its hard to carry around with me. Right.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
Does going digital add any advantage to this kind of application?
Just going digital, probably not. However, I can run to the local cell phone store and buy a phone with BT. Anyone know where I can buy a cell phone with a "simple RF" interface, that is standard enough to either build or buy a headset for it?
eg. See this Ultra sonic mapper which does all what the No. 1 does plus MUCH more, and Geeky Keep-in-touch device.
May be their stress was on purely pSoC based systems (No. 1 doesn't have any other semiconductor device than pSoC). Even if it was this, they should have mentioned this in their competition.I all my impression is that creativity and effort has been brushed aside in this competition.
Regards
- Mritunjai
- mritunjai
Bluetooth also includes encryption and authentication. Do you really want the guy in the seat next to you to answer your phone call before you because he has quicker reflexes and a "simple RF" interface headset?
Bluetooth is the ideal interface as it interoperates with other devices in the the area. I use bluetooth between an iBook and Nokia handset and I've never had any problems with the devices not connecting to each other.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
This entry won 2nd place, and for good reason...Here's the gist of it:
This device sits in between your TV and your cable or antenna source. It strips out the close captioning information, and replaces it with custom information from your PC and/or caller ID, and prints it as a headline on your TV using the close captioning feature.
He says the box itself can decode caller ID info from your phone, and has a wireless link to get IM or 'You've Got Mail' type updates from your PC...Pretty sneaky. er...Geeky
For 16bit 44.1kHz stereo you'd need 1.411 Mbit/s speed... I'm not sure whether bluetooth can go upto that speeds. Though, for headphones, lower bit rates/sampling rate should not cause sigificant loss in quality (headphone speakers are already sucky) but would surely help making it feasible project
- mritunjai
I have a dinky-little SonyEricsson headset for my Nokia 6310, and even after being fully charged, the battery in the thing only lasts around four-to-five hours in its 'standby' mode.
If actually used to make/receive a call, the battery life is even worse!
So, in all, a nice gimmick, looks lovely, but almost completely useless as it won't last the duration of a working day.
(And, of course, there's no 'in-car' charger available!!)
-- Seamus
They don't have a long range or anything. The thing is there are often times when you want to be able to use our phone, but not be holding it to your head. Driving comes to mind. Hence, a headset. Now it's near enough that wires work, however they are not real conveinent. Hence, a wireless headset. Yes, it's not real necessary and is kind of a toy, but hey, we like toys.
Sure, I want my cellphone and PDA bluetooth'd so that when I come near the two of them sync with my PC so all my shit is together, so to speak.
... make the encryption key strong enough (can be generated on my box and just sent to phone so the phone doesnt have to gen it) so its not possible. The point of these is so whenever I get to my door, the house unlocks or when I get to my car, its unlocked.
I also really want the bluetooth earpiece so I look like even more of a loon then I do with my hands free.
I also want bluetooth locks on my door and my car. Oh you say wait until your 1337s hit me and break in
I also want the ATMs and Vending Machines Bluetooth enabled. I just worry about the Vending Machines getting used more by me when I dont have to watch moneys go into it.
Yes, bluetooth enabled TV/Receivers. Truely universal remotes.
Bluetooth enabled appliances. Control the hot and cold from my PDA, start the oven, etc. (Again, like all of these, you just need strong encryption. ALso, bluetooth is short range so I war chalking shouldnt be much of a problem?)
Please, someone start this REVOLUTION already ):
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I was talking about practical applications of this idea. If "security" is your concern, "forget" BT. The security it provides is worse than that of Wi-Fi.
I'd be very interested to hear you justify that. My BT headset is paired to my phone - it won't listen to anyone elses phone, and my phone will not listen to anyone elses headset. The phone and headset are not even discoverable unless I manually do something to them. Comms are encrypted and sent over spread spectrum. I doubt that the average phonecall lasts long enough to capture the gigabyte or so of network traffic that it would take to even begin to attempt to break the crypto, plus attackers would have to be within a 10m radius of my call which could prove to be a little difficult.
You should look into the power levels on these things.
Personally I'd prefer to stick 20mW @ 2.4GHz (Bluetooth headset) next to my brain, than 500mW @ 1.8GHz (GSM Mobile Phone)
I can't speak to specifics, I haven't started digging around BlueTooth yet, but don't be so quick to deny it's hackability based on the market drivel you've repeated. 802.11X protocols also had various mentioned feautures to make them secure - and as long as everyone just runs their factory cards/drivers/software/settings, it's secure. But if your security relies on someone not re-writing the software, you're SOL. Check out http://802.11ninja.net, where some freinds of mine have some software the defeats just about everything that 802.11X offers security-wise. With that software and the right card, you can DoS a base station, join a supposedly "secure" network, launch a man-in-the-middle attack (you become the base station to the network's users), and yes, even recover the weak crappy keys that the protocol uses for encryption and do al the same irregardless of that encryption.
So again, the question is not what market drivel buzzwords someone said about the technology - technically if 802.11 had implemented all their buzzwords correctly they would be secure too - it's about whether they really did it *right*, or they left it poorly implemented and vulnerable. So far history is on the vulnerable side.
11*43+456^2