How long does it take to add text and imaging to POTS? How long does it take to add sound and images to Internet-based instant messaging? Which technology supports faster innovation in configuring sensory modes?
That's a big difference. That's the big difference. See "Sense in Communication" at www.galbithink.org.
There's considerable biological and evolutionary evidence that motion (gesture) is intimately related to the development of language and the brain. See Section I of "Sense in Communication," available at www.galbithink.org. So I think that incorporating more bodily movement into digital games will be an important future trend, even if N-Gage hasn't quite gotten it right. For a different device that does this, consider EyeToy.
Integrating photography and telephony can be much better than just adding a camera to a phone. In the US across the 20'th century, persons spent about 80 minutes on the phone for each photograph taken. This is roughly the same ratio as picture sending/voice telephony today in Japan with camera phones. See Table 7, p. 125 and p. 135 in "Sense in Communication," available at www.galbithink.org. Getting more value out of photography probably requires new practices of use. A good start might be for mobile phone manufactures to figure out an appealing device design that enables talking and sharing images at the same time.
What tends to be overlooked in the "open spectrum, new wireless paradigm" jargon is that persons always have had freedom to emit radio energy in certain ways. Like being alive (infrared body-heat radiation), putting on wool sweaters (ultra-wideband spark transmissions), and starting car engines (a very significant source of RF emissions). For details, see "Revolutinary Ideas for Radio Regulation," pp. 59-62, available at galbithink.org and on SSRN.
A key policy question is how to recognize natural rights and freedoms to use radio to communicate.
Either your government is that greatest in the world or they are sold-out money grabbing pigs. You can't have both.
How 'bout neither? More to the point, what should you do to try to get a better regulatory framework for Wi-Fi? Suggested actions:
Get informed. At the risk of generating bad karma, I suggest reading my paper on, "Revolutionary Ideas for Radio Regulation," available on www.galbithink.org.
Discuss the issue with friends. At the risk of being toasted, I suggest that most persons on Slashdot are not your friends. Try taking to some persons, face-to-face, full bandwidth-like. It's fun!
Get politically active. At the risk of seeming utterly uncool, I suggest ommunicating with the persons who serve you in government.
Keep in mind that any proper subset of the points above is inefficacious. Doing all three will surely lead to an interesting life, if not better regulation. Go for it!
Evidence on bandwidth growth trends shows that
the second half of the 1990s doesn't look much
different than the first half. See paper on
bandwidth at http://www.galbithink.org
Folks claiming that data traffic is doubling every ninety days must be passing around something other than their sig file. It just ain't like that.
So what's gonna be in those big optical pipes? Doesn't look like HDTV... How interesting is an all optical internet running between a few major business centers and serving a few large corporations? When is such technology actually going to matter in most people's lives?
In his keynote on Monday at SuperComm2000, John Sidgmore of UUNET declared that stand-alone broadband doesn't work as a business model and that UUNET isn't profitable despite the fact that it is the Internet's largest transport provider.
You might dismiss Sidgmore's comments as self-interested whining, but as Excite@Home's actions and the discussion here indicate, there are real issues. The fundamental question is what sorts of unequal treatment and service differentiation are likely to lead to the best competitive structure. As Justice Breyer noted in the Iowa Utilities Board decision,
"Increased sharing by itself does not automatically mean increased competition. It is in the unshared, not in the shared, portions of the enterprise that meaningful competition would likely emerge."
Substitute "equality in packet routing" for "sharing" and you have an important comment on Excite@Home's action.
As horrifying as it might seem to some, beyond best-effort "base level" IP connectivity, allowing service providers to be more closely tied to particular wide-area network infrastructure may provide a better competitive structure for advanced network services. I've explored these ideas in detail in some discussion papers available at http://www.erols.com/dgalbi/telpol/think.htm
Slashdot Mirror
How long does it take to add text and imaging to POTS? How long does it take to add sound and images to Internet-based instant messaging? Which technology supports faster innovation in configuring sensory modes?
That's a big difference. That's the big difference. See "Sense in Communication" at www.galbithink.org.
There's considerable biological and evolutionary evidence that motion (gesture) is intimately related to the development of language and the brain. See Section I of "Sense in Communication," available at www.galbithink.org. So I think that incorporating more bodily movement into digital games will be an important future trend, even if N-Gage hasn't quite gotten it right. For a different device that does this, consider EyeToy.
Thus you will see how from a silly question many wise answers can be produced, and such is probably the cultural function of naive interviews.
/.
Clearly this man has been reading
Integrating photography and telephony can be much better than just adding a camera to a phone. In the US across the 20'th century, persons spent about 80 minutes on the phone for each photograph taken. This is roughly the same ratio as picture sending/voice telephony today in Japan with camera phones. See Table 7, p. 125 and p. 135 in "Sense in Communication," available at www.galbithink.org. Getting more value out of photography probably requires new practices of use. A good start might be for mobile phone manufactures to figure out an appealing device design that enables talking and sharing images at the same time.
To get to wi-fi bliss, we have to pass through an old regulatory morass. Time for some revolutionary ideas for radio regulation!
What tends to be overlooked in the "open spectrum, new wireless paradigm" jargon is that persons always have had freedom to emit radio energy in certain ways. Like being alive (infrared body-heat radiation), putting on wool sweaters (ultra-wideband spark transmissions), and starting car engines (a very significant source of RF emissions). For details, see "Revolutinary Ideas for Radio Regulation," pp. 59-62, available at galbithink.org and on SSRN.
A key policy question is how to recognize natural rights and freedoms to use radio to communicate.
How 'bout neither? More to the point, what should you do to try to get a better regulatory framework for Wi-Fi? Suggested actions:
Keep in mind that any proper subset of the points above is inefficacious. Doing all three will surely lead to an interesting life, if not better regulation. Go for it!
Are there only two sides to any issue, sort of
like a football game or coin-tossing?
Evidence on bandwidth growth trends shows that the second half of the 1990s doesn't look much different than the first half. See paper on bandwidth at http://www.galbithink.org
Folks claiming that data traffic is doubling every ninety days must be passing around something other than their sig file. It just ain't like that.
So what's gonna be in those big optical pipes? Doesn't look like HDTV... How interesting is an all optical internet running between a few major business centers and serving a few large corporations? When is such technology actually going to matter in most people's lives?
In his keynote on Monday at SuperComm2000, John Sidgmore of UUNET declared that stand-alone broadband doesn't work as a business model and that UUNET isn't profitable despite the fact that it is the Internet's largest transport provider.
You might dismiss Sidgmore's comments as self-interested whining, but as Excite@Home's actions and the discussion here indicate, there are real issues. The fundamental question is what sorts of unequal treatment and service differentiation are likely to lead to the best competitive structure. As Justice Breyer noted in the Iowa Utilities Board decision,
Substitute "equality in packet routing" for "sharing" and you have an important comment on Excite@Home's action.As horrifying as it might seem to some, beyond best-effort "base level" IP connectivity, allowing service providers to be more closely tied to particular wide-area network infrastructure may provide a better competitive structure for advanced network services. I've explored these ideas in detail in some discussion papers available at http://www.erols.com/dgalbi/telpol/think.htm