Hmmm... I think they can probably do it better than a few miles. Provided that they can pick you up on several base stations, you can find the distance to the mobile using the timing advance and then triangulate.
That's not as unlikely as it seems with such arrangements as umbrella cells where you have a big cell for fast moving mobiles travelling on a motorway covering the same area as a set of smaller cells for local traffic. It's done that way to reduce load on the network; you don't get a whole series of handovers in quick succession.
Directional antennas are also going to help - you can get some idea of the direction if the signal is coming in one one part of the antenna and not another.
> or- Distributed mobile phones.
>
> An Idea that I've been kicking around in
> my head for a while is the concept of a
> distributed mobile phone. Each Phone acts
> as a transmitter for your call, and a
> forwarder for other calls.
> Thus, as the number of phones sold
> increases, so does the total range of
> the system
Actually, the specifications for 3G phones do
have something like this as a capability.
However, I can't quite see this one flying as
the general basis for a network - I mean, do
you really want your battery power to be used
up forwarding other people's phone
conversations?
I notice he seems to be talking about the UK since he mentions OFTEL and regulation of the telecoms industry.
[Although, I must admit I always thought without OFTEL we would have nothing *but* BT and even more outrageous phone costs than we currently do. But then that's tangential]
As I see it the basic problem is that currently we don't buy software - we buy licenses to use software.
DISCLAIMER I'm not a lawyer so caveat emptor on the rest of this.
If software was a normal good, then (in the UK) it would be subject to the Sale Of Goods Act.
One provision of this is that any goods sold *must* be "fit for purpose". This is a basic consumer right in the UK and can't be overridden by (say) sticking labels on the thing saying that if you open the packet then it's OK.
The courts take a dim view of people selling shoddy goods and even for minor infractions you can always go to the small claims court.
So I don't know: are there any problems involved in forcing software to be sold as a normal good? I can see that the software producers wouldn't be too keen.:)
I'd say that MS-Linux isn't likely at least for the forseeable future: MS have too much of a gold mine in Windows in all its forms to give credibility to a competitor, plus they don't exactly have a good brand image for this one.
However, Office for Linux is another matter - they can play exactly the same game that they do with Office for Macs.
Let's face it - the Halloween memos show that MS is aware that the effect of Linux is to commoditise the operating system. If there's no way they can kill it [1], they'll want to be in on it and the easiest way they can do that is through Office.
[1] I'd guess an attempt at FUD, patents and especially FUD about patents. I don't think it'll work, but I bet they try it.
a) It'll never work. b) It might work but no-one would want to do it. c) OK, someone might want to do it, but they'll be sorry. d) I always said it was a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... I think they can probably do it better
than a few miles. Provided that they can pick
you up on several base stations, you can
find the distance to the mobile using the
timing advance and then triangulate.
That's not as unlikely as it seems with such
arrangements as umbrella cells where you have
a big cell for fast moving mobiles travelling
on a motorway covering the same area as a set
of smaller cells for local traffic. It's done
that way to reduce load on the network; you
don't get a whole series of handovers in quick
succession.
Directional antennas are also going to help
- you can get some idea of the direction if
the signal is coming in one one part of the
antenna and not another.
> or- Distributed mobile phones.
>
> An Idea that I've been kicking around in
> my head for a while is the concept of a
> distributed mobile phone. Each Phone acts
> as a transmitter for your call, and a
> forwarder for other calls.
> Thus, as the number of phones sold
> increases, so does the total range of
> the system
Actually, the specifications for 3G phones do
have something like this as a capability.
However, I can't quite see this one flying as
the general basis for a network - I mean, do
you really want your battery power to be used
up forwarding other people's phone
conversations?
I notice he seems to be talking about the UK
:)
since he mentions OFTEL and regulation of the
telecoms industry.
[Although, I must admit I always thought
without OFTEL we would have nothing *but*
BT and even more outrageous phone costs
than we currently do. But then that's
tangential]
As I see it the basic problem is that currently
we don't buy software - we buy licenses to use
software.
DISCLAIMER
I'm not a lawyer so caveat emptor on the rest
of this.
If software was a normal good, then (in the UK)
it would be subject to the Sale Of Goods Act.
One provision of this is that any goods sold
*must* be "fit for purpose". This is a basic
consumer right in the UK and can't be overridden
by (say) sticking labels on the thing saying that
if you open the packet then it's OK.
The courts take a dim view of people selling
shoddy goods and even for minor infractions
you can always go to the small claims court.
So I don't know: are there any problems involved
in forcing software to be sold as a normal good?
I can see that the software producers wouldn't
be too keen.
Hey, there are some of us out here who like ;)
the statistics just as they are...
Not that more female geeks would be a bad thing
of course - diversity rarely is.
I'd say that MS-Linux isn't likely at least for the forseeable future: MS have too much of a
gold mine in Windows in all its forms to give
credibility to a competitor, plus they don't
exactly have a good brand image for this one.
However, Office for Linux is another matter - they
can play exactly the same game that they do with
Office for Macs.
Let's face it - the Halloween memos show that
MS is aware that the effect of Linux is to
commoditise the operating system. If there's
no way they can kill it [1], they'll want to
be in on it and the easiest way they can
do that is through Office.
[1] I'd guess an attempt at FUD, patents and
especially FUD about patents. I don't think
it'll work, but I bet they try it.
a) It'll never work.
b) It might work but no-one would want to do it.
c) OK, someone might want to do it, but they'll be
sorry.
d) I always said it was a good idea.
I think we've reached (c) - just one more to go!