Not at all: synchronization is one of the standardized Bluetooth profiles. If both devices are certified for that profile, that's all there is to it. Granted, the Palm-to-Palm-Desktop link is probably just using serial emulation and using the old Palm hotsync protocol over it.
But if he's putting his calendar and contacts on his Sony Ericsson phone, using only Apple's software, then it's definitely using a Bluetooth profile.
Apple's done a wonderful job with their software, I even got it to pair with my SonyEricsson!
There are very rigorous interoperability tests that a device (plus it's software) must undergo in order to carry the Bluetooth name. So the fact that these work together just means they've been certified, which you can already see from the fact that they're both called Bluetooth.
This is why the Bluetooth name is trademarked, and this is why Bluetooth seems to have been so long in coming. Imagine if USB wasn't allowed to market until after the first few years during which its initial bugs were worked out...
Correct. Gross bandwidth is about 1 megabit/sec. But of course, there's overhead for the protocol which leaves you with about 720 kbit/sec theoretical max on an asynchronous link, or 432 kpbs (each way) on a synchronous link.
And why use Bluetooth? Because I can get an internet connection on my handheld, via my cell phone, without my phone ever leaving my pocket.
2G (TDMA) to 2.5G(GPRS) its a major network upgrade. From 2.5G(GPRS) to 3G(GSM) its a small hardware upgrad
This is where I meant you had it backwards. It's a small(ish) hardware upgrade to add GPRS to a GSM network. It needs no new antennae and what not. GSM is 2G, GPRS is 2.5G, and UMTS is (true) 3G.
UMTS uses entirely different spectrum and air interface (CDMA, not TDMA like GSM), not to mention signalling protocols, etc. UMTS is a massive upgrade and is usually considered "a whole new network."
The TDMA you're thinking of is ANSI-136. That specifies the nuts and bolts of the air interface. GSM has different specs, but both use "TDMA" as the means of multiplexing. (Since they're similar, they can be made (forced) to interoperate. This is usually through GAIT.)
The CDMA you're thinking of is ANSI-95. Again, an implementation of "CDMA" as a multiplexing means. UMTS also uses "CDMA" for multiplexing, but to much different specs than current CDMA networks.
The 2.5G hardware is fully upgradeable to 3G. You don't have to deploy any more networks. [...] people with tri-mode phones are using their british 3G phones here in the usa, NOW. So its GPRS, the end user doesnt know its GPRS, its thier GSM phone. [...]
So, you must work in marketing for Qualcomm...;-)
Seriously though, while I think I know what you're getting at when you assert a difference between deploying a whole new network and a simple "hardware upgrade," I think you've got it backwards.
True (non-Qualcomm marketing wonk) 3G does require new networks. And new spectrum. All of which is expensive. That's why so many operators are rolling out shared networks at first. AT&T and Cingular announced such an agreement a while ago.
And... there are no 3G phones from Britain wandering across the pond just yet.
And... if you're using a GSM phone with GPRS ability, you definitely know it. You configure and use it separately.
But really though, a "hardware upgrade" vs. "a whole new network." It's a bit like Theseus' Ship, isn't it? From one perspective, 3G is simple a hardware upgrade: you just upgrade your antennae, base stations, switches, HLRs, SMSCs, billing systems, handsets,...
A universal Turing machine is essentially a computer as we know them. It is a Turing machine that is capable of emulating the behavior of any other Turing machine. Since no one has yet disproved the Church-Turing thesis, this means it is a computer that is as powerful as any model of computation yet devised.
The link seems to be slashdotted, so I can't see whether he has come up with a way to make a UTM using fewer states than previous ones, or just a way to encode one in fewer bits.
I think I heard somewhere that there is a correlation between the optimal number of states in a UTM and the number of states a human can actually keep track of unaided by a machine. That's food for thought as to whether humans can do anything that is "extra-computational." That is, whether we are more powerful than Turing machines.
Wagner's "Der Ring Des Nibelungen" also influenced him
Indeed. It contains a ring lost in a river, a broken sword that the hero must reforge, and ultimately the departure of the gods from the world. (It is, of course, based on the Middle-German Nibelungenlied.)
Another interesting way to take this would be: Wagner and Schopenhauer begat Nietzsche (then Schopenhauer battled Wagner), Nietzsche became (like Tolkien 100 years later) a professor of philology, Nietzsche put together most of the ideas responsible for anything we've read in thinkers like Freud or Joseph Campbell.
Re:Regarding Pet Peeve #2
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
And that's the point that everyone is missing. HTML links are not inherently two-way. It takes some extra mechanism: your browser voluntarilty telling a site from where you are finding it, or a monster like Google scouring everything to look for who links to whom.
The point being made in the book, I believe, is about Google. It uses the phenomenon of linking in order to rank sites. There is no "master thinking program" analyzing page contents to determine similarities. Rather, each page's links (and the text they use to link) come together (in Google) to "self-select" similarities. That a larger taxonomical "intelligence" emerges from the individual phenomenon of linking is evident from how damn right Google gets its results.
While this is a fair questions, I'd like to point out that a fairer way to state it is: How does WAP (w/ WML) differ from TCP/IP w/HTML.
WAP specifies much more than just the mark-up language, though that mark-up language is all that probably 90% of developers interface with. As the many articles point out, the WML in WAP2.0 will be based on XHTML-basic so WML and HTML will have met again.
WAP the networking protocol is much better suited to a wireless environment than TCP/IP. In some cases TCP/IP in wireless networks can be counterproductive. For example, TCP could interpret high-latency as congestion and send fewer packets. If the latency isn't due to congestion but to, say, a signal bouncing around between buildings and coming in and out of communication, then fewer packets equals more useless waiting around (packets aren't being dropped, they're just slow), which adds up to decreased performance. WAP the protocol tries to work around things like this.
synchronization, dial up networking and fax, capability
The Dial-Up Networking Profile is exactly what your thinking of. Any other Bluetooth device that knows how to use the Dial-Up Networking Profile (which is all PCMCIA cards at this time) will be able to use the phone just like any other modem.
"Profiles" is the Bluetooth name for standardized functionalities. So when you're looking at Bluetooth devices, check to see which profiles are implemented.
On the more general note of Bluetooth as wireless serial: yes, it is. Bluetooth is capable of emulating--not that you'd ever want to--62 simultaneous serial ports. So if there isn't a profile that does what you want, you can implement it yourself over simulated serial links. Also, existing apps that know how to use a serial port will be very, very easy to retrofit to use Bluetooth.
Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
You're pretty much right here, but everyone needs to see through the press and speculation.
Blackberries just use a quite old wireless packet data network called Mobitex (the same thing the UPS guys has on his signature pad). 3G succeeds this by several generations. You will be using your Blackberry or Palm or Agenda or Zaurus or whatever you feel most comfortable with. But it will be using 3G. Possibly via a Bluetooth connection to your 3G phone--so you can carry the phone alone if you don't think you'll want full-color browsing that afternoon.
3G is very slowly coming. It's got the corporate weight of the entrenched network operators behind it. The dire straights that Richochet is in just point to the unfortunate economic realities of "capital-intensive" services like natiowide wireless.
Absolutely. I don't know where he pulled $100 from, but most Bluetooth chips/modules are in the $15 to $35 range now, depending on how much of the stack you want to be able to run with it, whether it comes with some flash in the module, etc. I mean, you can get a retail adapter with everything (stack, no profiles) for not much more than $100.
Yeah, but the last 10 feet is a bitch... When I was a work-study here I once had to ask a student to hold my legs while I leaned out the window to swing some ethernet cable to my boss two floors down and one window over. They were desperate to get that cutting-edge new media center on-line I guess.
And for the two months I worked in hell, tenants were taking it on themselves to run cable up the internal inter-floor mail chutes. Only people were still trying to drop physical mail in them...
Re:Backwards compatibility vs extensibility
on
Evolution Of RSS
·
· Score: 1
RSS 1.0 will still be able to parse the 0.91 RDF's
If I may pick a nit, RSS 0.91 is not RDF. RSS 1.0 is, I believe, the first rev that's legal RDF.
This is exactly the point I wanted to bring up. People have discussed sets and relations since long before computers existed. The math behind them is solid and well-understood (if you didn't sleep through Discrete Math).
While "object" math could get there, it hasn't yet. And, since we're all angelic coders who wouldn't think of deploying software that we hadn't proved computationally correct, how do we prove computational correctness of OO-data?
At least with relational-OO "mapping" we can prove that what we lose in the mapping is inconsequential to the application at hand.
Heh. My hippie parents were actually married by a friend of theirs who was ordained through the mail as a draft dodge. But this was in Texas, and commonlaw marriage is the law there after 6 months of cohabitation. I was born three years later, so, either way, in the eyes of the law I'm not a bastard.
Just one last comment before this board gets closed and archived...
Mr. Podesta did not take the analogy anywhere as far as anyone on this board has. He just kind of threw it out for discussion without taking as firm a position on it as I may have implied. Like I said, it's all on-line if you want to see exactly what he said
I did him a disservice by paraphrasing so freely. And everyone has brought up some very good points. I'd like to explore the analogy a bit and see why it breaks down:
It's legal to own a letter opener. Yes, as long as you use it to open mail that you have permission to open. Outlawing DeCSS is akin to outlawing letter openers, because you have every right to watch a DVD you paid for on the platform of your choice.
Envelopes don't provide total privacy. But they do provide acceptable privacy for most banal communication. Comparing this aspect of the analogy to DMCA really strains it. If you open someone else's mail you know you're committing a crime. If you make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, you know you're committing a crime. Opening your own mail is akin to making a legit copy of property that you own rights to: nothing should get in your way.
In this respect, all bets are off once crypto gets in the way of individual rights to IP. The analogy here would something like be the post office charging you per letter, reading it aloud to you, keeping it, and making you pay them again if you wanted to "read" it again.
But in all fairness to Mr. Podesta, I think his point was this: at what point do we stop saying "you didn't have triple police locks on your door, you deserved to have your house broken into, we can't chase every offender" and start trying to change attitudes about theft.
One road is very, very easy; one road is very, very hard. Guess which one is more rewarding.
On this note, I went to a panel on privacy and crypto last week. It included Michael Rabin (Turing award winner, inventor of vanishing key encryption), Whitfield Diffie (co-inventor of public key crypto), Steven Levy (author of Crypto), and John Podesta (Clinton's chief of staff).
Anyhow, Podesta was very candid about how the tight enforcement of export controls was meant to hinder the spread of strong crypto until the NSA could recover from the clipper chip fiasco. So, no, I don't think gov't key escrow will rear it's head again in that form.
He also drew an interesting parallel between weak crypto and regular mail: you trust that your letters will be private if you seal the envelopes. Sure, anyone can open them. But doing so is federal crime with heavy penalties. Hence criminalizing the breaking of weak crypto. But he also said the MPAA deserved what they got. So go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all: synchronization is one of the standardized Bluetooth profiles. If both devices are certified for that profile, that's all there is to it. Granted, the Palm-to-Palm-Desktop link is probably just using serial emulation and using the old Palm hotsync protocol over it.
But if he's putting his calendar and contacts on his Sony Ericsson phone, using only Apple's software, then it's definitely using a Bluetooth profile.
Apple's done a wonderful job with their software, I even got it to pair with my SonyEricsson!
There are very rigorous interoperability tests that a device (plus it's software) must undergo in order to carry the Bluetooth name. So the fact that these work together just means they've been certified, which you can already see from the fact that they're both called Bluetooth.
This is why the Bluetooth name is trademarked, and this is why Bluetooth seems to have been so long in coming. Imagine if USB wasn't allowed to market until after the first few years during which its initial bugs were worked out...
Correct. Gross bandwidth is about 1 megabit/sec. But of course, there's overhead for the protocol which leaves you with about 720 kbit/sec theoretical max on an asynchronous link, or 432 kpbs (each way) on a synchronous link.
And why use Bluetooth? Because I can get an internet connection on my handheld, via my cell phone, without my phone ever leaving my pocket.
2G (TDMA) to 2.5G(GPRS) its a major network upgrade. From 2.5G(GPRS) to 3G(GSM) its a small hardware upgrad
This is where I meant you had it backwards. It's a small(ish) hardware upgrade to add GPRS to a GSM network. It needs no new antennae and what not. GSM is 2G, GPRS is 2.5G, and UMTS is (true) 3G.
UMTS uses entirely different spectrum and air interface (CDMA, not TDMA like GSM), not to mention signalling protocols, etc. UMTS is a massive upgrade and is usually considered "a whole new network."
The TDMA you're thinking of is ANSI-136. That specifies the nuts and bolts of the air interface. GSM has different specs, but both use "TDMA" as the means of multiplexing. (Since they're similar, they can be made (forced) to interoperate. This is usually through GAIT.)
The CDMA you're thinking of is ANSI-95. Again, an implementation of "CDMA" as a multiplexing means. UMTS also uses "CDMA" for multiplexing, but to much different specs than current CDMA networks.
The 2.5G hardware is fully upgradeable to 3G. You don't have to deploy any more networks. [...]
people with tri-mode phones are using their british 3G phones here in the usa, NOW. So its GPRS, the end user doesnt know its GPRS, its thier GSM phone. [...]
So, you must work in marketing for Qualcomm...
Seriously though, while I think I know what you're getting at when you assert a difference between deploying a whole new network and a simple "hardware upgrade," I think you've got it backwards.
True (non-Qualcomm marketing wonk) 3G does require new networks. And new spectrum. All of which is expensive. That's why so many operators are rolling out shared networks at first. AT&T and Cingular announced such an agreement a while ago.
And... there are no 3G phones from Britain wandering across the pond just yet.
And... if you're using a GSM phone with GPRS ability, you definitely know it. You configure and use it separately.
But really though, a "hardware upgrade" vs. "a whole new network." It's a bit like Theseus' Ship, isn't it? From one perspective, 3G is simple a hardware upgrade: you just upgrade your antennae, base stations, switches, HLRs, SMSCs, billing systems, handsets,
If the data is larger than the computer, then the computer is not equivalent to a Turing machine.
But you could multiply large primes with a Sinclair, you'd just have to be willing to spend a long time feeding it cassette tapes...
A universal Turing machine is essentially a computer as we know them. It is a Turing machine that is capable of emulating the behavior of any other Turing machine. Since no one has yet disproved the Church-Turing thesis, this means it is a computer that is as powerful as any model of computation yet devised.
The link seems to be slashdotted, so I can't see whether he has come up with a way to make a UTM using fewer states than previous ones, or just a way to encode one in fewer bits.
I think I heard somewhere that there is a correlation between the optimal number of states in a UTM and the number of states a human can actually keep track of unaided by a machine. That's food for thought as to whether humans can do anything that is "extra-computational." That is, whether we are more powerful than Turing machines.
Wagner's "Der Ring Des Nibelungen" also influenced him
Indeed. It contains a ring lost in a river, a broken sword that the hero must reforge, and ultimately the departure of the gods from the world. (It is, of course, based on the Middle-German Nibelungenlied.)
Another interesting way to take this would be: Wagner and Schopenhauer begat Nietzsche (then Schopenhauer battled Wagner), Nietzsche became (like Tolkien 100 years later) a professor of philology, Nietzsche put together most of the ideas responsible for anything we've read in thinkers like Freud or Joseph Campbell.
And that's the point that everyone is missing. HTML links are not inherently two-way. It takes some extra mechanism: your browser voluntarilty telling a site from where you are finding it, or a monster like Google scouring everything to look for who links to whom.
The point being made in the book, I believe, is about Google. It uses the phenomenon of linking in order to rank sites. There is no "master thinking program" analyzing page contents to determine similarities. Rather, each page's links (and the text they use to link) come together (in Google) to "self-select" similarities. That a larger taxonomical "intelligence" emerges from the individual phenomenon of linking is evident from how damn right Google gets its results.
Voicestream has rolled out GPRS over their entire network. Check their site for istream, as they're branding it.
Suprised that went unnoticed so long...
* How does it differ from HTML and
While this is a fair questions, I'd like to point out that a fairer way to state it is: How does WAP (w/ WML) differ from TCP/IP w/HTML.
WAP specifies much more than just the mark-up language, though that mark-up language is all that probably 90% of developers interface with. As the many articles point out, the WML in WAP2.0 will be based on XHTML-basic so WML and HTML will have met again.
WAP the networking protocol is much better suited to a wireless environment than TCP/IP. In some cases TCP/IP in wireless networks can be counterproductive. For example, TCP could interpret high-latency as congestion and send fewer packets. If the latency isn't due to congestion but to, say, a signal bouncing around between buildings and coming in and out of communication, then fewer packets equals more useless waiting around (packets aren't being dropped, they're just slow), which adds up to decreased performance. WAP the protocol tries to work around things like this.
Well, there's always the Ericsson T39. Bluetooth, GPRS, POP mail client, WAP, and SyncML. All in one very small phone.
Huge disclosure: I work for Ericsson.
The Dial-Up Networking Profile is exactly what your thinking of. Any other Bluetooth device that knows how to use the Dial-Up Networking Profile (which is all PCMCIA cards at this time) will be able to use the phone just like any other modem.
"Profiles" is the Bluetooth name for standardized functionalities. So when you're looking at Bluetooth devices, check to see which profiles are implemented.
On the more general note of Bluetooth as wireless serial: yes, it is. Bluetooth is capable of emulating--not that you'd ever want to--62 simultaneous serial ports. So if there isn't a profile that does what you want, you can implement it yourself over simulated serial links. Also, existing apps that know how to use a serial port will be very, very easy to retrofit to use Bluetooth.
This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.
And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/
Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
If you have an Ericsson phone, we publish AT command references for many of them at:
http://www.ericsson.com/mobilityworld/ in the "Open Zone" area.
(Full disclosure: I'm Lead Technologist for Ericsson Mobility World USA.)
Blackberries just use a quite old wireless packet data network called Mobitex (the same thing the UPS guys has on his signature pad). 3G succeeds this by several generations. You will be using your Blackberry or Palm or Agenda or Zaurus or whatever you feel most comfortable with. But it will be using 3G. Possibly via a Bluetooth connection to your 3G phone--so you can carry the phone alone if you don't think you'll want full-color browsing that afternoon.
3G is very slowly coming. It's got the corporate weight of the entrenched network operators behind it. The dire straights that Richochet is in just point to the unfortunate economic realities of "capital-intensive" services like natiowide wireless.
But, can you make phone calls with your Ricochet? (I mean real phone calls, with guaranteed QoS.) Can you keep it in your pocket?
Out of curiosity, who quoted you $2?
And for the two months I worked in hell, tenants were taking it on themselves to run cable up the internal inter-floor mail chutes. Only people were still trying to drop physical mail in them...
If I may pick a nit, RSS 0.91 is not RDF. RSS 1.0 is, I believe, the first rev that's legal RDF.
While "object" math could get there, it hasn't yet. And, since we're all angelic coders who wouldn't think of deploying software that we hadn't proved computationally correct, how do we prove computational correctness of OO-data?
At least with relational-OO "mapping" we can prove that what we lose in the mapping is inconsequential to the application at hand.
Some of my friends may disagree...
Mr. Podesta did not take the analogy anywhere as far as anyone on this board has. He just kind of threw it out for discussion without taking as firm a position on it as I may have implied. Like I said, it's all on-line if you want to see exactly what he said
It's legal to own a letter opener. Yes, as long as you use it to open mail that you have permission to open. Outlawing DeCSS is akin to outlawing letter openers, because you have every right to watch a DVD you paid for on the platform of your choice.
Envelopes don't provide total privacy. But they do provide acceptable privacy for most banal communication. Comparing this aspect of the analogy to DMCA really strains it. If you open someone else's mail you know you're committing a crime. If you make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, you know you're committing a crime. Opening your own mail is akin to making a legit copy of property that you own rights to: nothing should get in your way.
In this respect, all bets are off once crypto gets in the way of individual rights to IP. The analogy here would something like be the post office charging you per letter, reading it aloud to you, keeping it, and making you pay them again if you wanted to "read" it again.
But in all fairness to Mr. Podesta, I think his point was this: at what point do we stop saying "you didn't have triple police locks on your door, you deserved to have your house broken into, we can't chase every offender" and start trying to change attitudes about theft.
One road is very, very easy; one road is very, very hard. Guess which one is more rewarding.
Anyhow, Podesta was very candid about how the tight enforcement of export controls was meant to hinder the spread of strong crypto until the NSA could recover from the clipper chip fiasco. So, no, I don't think gov't key escrow will rear it's head again in that form.
He also drew an interesting parallel between weak crypto and regular mail: you trust that your letters will be private if you seal the envelopes. Sure, anyone can open them. But doing so is federal crime with heavy penalties. Hence criminalizing the breaking of weak crypto. But he also said the MPAA deserved what they got. So go figure.
The whole thing is archived on-line (alas, WMP only).