It's like voice instant messaging. Or like instant voice multicast to a group of people. It's also a billing thing--it's cheaper to use because two parties aren't being billed for two-way airtime during an exchange--they're only billed for the time during which there was actual transmission. Conversations tend to be shorter, so monthly bills tend to be lower.
Um: 1 - GPS on all new phones released since Nov 2002 [http://www.mostlycreativeworkshop.com/article123. html]. 2 - MIDP 2.0 on all new java phones launching after October [http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-978294.html] -- one of the first MIDP 2.0 rollouts in the world, probably the first in the US. 3 - Plans for phones that swap between 802.11 and iDEN network [http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/1 7/HNnexte l_1.html].
But perhaps when you say 21st century you mean shiny? https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/b lobs/ret rieve.cgi?attachment_id=337871&native_or_pdf=p df
Something like this became a tradition in Washington DC. Every year, AOLTimeWarnerHBOSmithklineBeechamConagra sponsors a showing of a free vintage movie on the National Mall.
A few years ago, as the pre-movie HBO trailer rolled on (the camera pan over a model town swiniging up to the stars swirling to make the HBO logo), someone decided that the earnest 1980s you-can-do-it music deserved some attention, and jumped up and started dancing to it as if he were a marionette being handled by someone with a bad case of Tourette's. Of the thousands gathered to see this film, some were bound to join. It kind of became a thing that was done during that year's series.
The following year, it started happening again, with more people jumping up and dancing like spastic marionettes. And the year after. This week, i would guess that about 1/3 of the people there pounced up at the chance to rejoice in the corporate theme song.
In a nutshell, yes. You've already told your customers to "take a look at x" in multiple ways by the time you sell your software.
By the time you sell a desktop app, you've consciously or implicitly come up with recommended hardware, configurations, service providers. You'll have implicitly made choices about:
Desktop hardware: you'll have specified minimum requirements because you probably don't want to even try supporting your new and sharp 3D topographic elevation GIS app on a Mac LC.
OS: Even if you've chosen Java (and certainly if you've chosen not-java), you've made a decision about the operating systems you'll support. You've made implicit and perhaps explicit statements about what configurations you know work. You've probably even tested on a dozen of them. (Probably the only vendor nowadays where you could try to get away with write once, test once would be Apple, and even that would be a bad idea.)
Network: You've made protocol choices, network architecture choices, all sorts of things that constrain your customers already. Or do you want to support your app if it happened to not work over X.25?
The wireless world offers, even then, some advantages: - device vendors tend to standardize across their product line on one particular flavor of implementation - carriers tend to standardize on one set of device vendors, and many vendors will fit on different carriers - individual carriers tend to enforce one specific approach to application design, testing and deployment to eliminate the potential for apps that don't work on their phones, because when apps fail on their phones (certainly consumer apps), consumers tend to call the carrier's support line and not the software vendor's support line.
There are plenty of full-blown, client-side, enterprise quality J2ME apps that run on cell phones, that can use public IP addresses on the Internet (yes, I've seen HTTP servers on a cell phone and cell phones with domain names), and that can do what staid enterprise developers would call Cool Things (barcode scanning, biometric IDs, on-phone GPS location tracking, voice recognition, phone-to-phone data streaming, FIPS-II crypto).
Not only that, these apps sell and companies make money off of the software.
Take a look at the various APIs that the actual handset manufacturers and network carriers make available--you may get a sense that J2ME two years ago and J2ME today are two different beasts.
You may be looking at the wrong devices. I recommend you take a look at Motorola's iDEN phones site--the J2ME implementation of various APIs in the phones are very complete and robust, including serial port interfaces, a half-dozen network protocols, crypto, interfaces to GPS hardware, etc. Yes, many of these are Motorola proprietary classes, but if you look at the MIDP 2.0 spec a lot of those proprietary features have become part of the general MIDP API.
Full disclosure: I work for Nextel. I also run their Developer Program.
How about a cell phone that has J2ME and that also has a barcode scanner that it can talk to?
http://www.symbol.com/products/barcode_scanners/ ba rcode_psm20i.html
If only they'd paid attention in high school...
on
Digging Holes in Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...they'd know that to get better searches you narrow down, not generalize. The general approach of search engines of telling you to "generalize" your search terms is a poor approach to addressing their limited indexing--it's created searchers who don't realize that words have multiple definitions and that only their context gives us a clue as to which definition to use.
If this Salon author were a student of mine (not that I'm a teacher) I'd have slapped an F on his research methods paper.
Ah, but you see, they had fava beans, fish, nuts, alpacas... and well, if the potato is a bad staple, then the scientists at the Inernational Potato Center in Lima have been wasting their time for the last 30-odd years.
Don't forget potatoes as a staple of the natives of the Americas. Sure, they're not grain, but they've been used as a high-carb source of starch and gluten for centuries.
Thank the Inkas for potatoes (not the Irish, mind you), for monstrously gigantic ears of purple corn, for understanding that llamas are better than wheels when you're dealing with steep cliffs.
Whomever said that the Inkas believed the Spaniards were gods, "pay manan unanchainku paykuna umayux karqaku" -- he does not understand how intelligent the Inkas were.
You're describing what is known in businesstalk(TM) as "communities of practice"--groups of people with very specific domains of expertise who interact with each other in various fora and who thus exchange information that becomes collective knowledge (knowledge=information that can be acted upon).
For these "advanced" communities to thrive--i.e., for the advanced members of a community of practice to continue to be involved--the advanced nature of the group needs to be maintained, and the new users need to be assimilated into the group so that they don't disrupt that arrangement. One way to do this is to bring new users in little by little by invitation. Another is to establish some form of mentoring/buddy system in which new people are brought into the group's culture. A third way is to establish listen-but-speak-not arrangements.
While most of these things are possible in Usenet in one way or another (moderated groups, walled garden groups, informal social arrangements between members, etc.), they require a high level of human administration. Without some members (not necessarily the most advanced users) wanting to do this major/minor amount of administration to maintain the value of the advanced community, the community will tend to fall apart due to what you describe.
Why does Slashdot not collapse, for example, under a similar structure, and why do you still read intelligent advanced insight on this site? The moderation and metamoderation tools tend to keep the good stuff floating to the top, keeping the advanced users interested, while providing enough social structure around it for fools to be kept at bay and new folks to be acculturated reasonably successfully.
The Darth gargoyle was carved and placed on the Cathedral in the 1980s--it was carved by master sculptor Palumbo (RIP) by a young lad who received honorable mention in a "Design-a-gargoyle" contest sponsored by World magazine (National Geographic for children).
The winner was a smiling gargoyle toting an umbrella.
In the US, wireless carriers have been given sets of exchanges [(area code) Exchange-line] that are used for mobile communications only. I'm not sure of the causal link (is it a perk or a reason?) but a relation to having this in place is that, thanks to the "called party pays for airtime" model we use in the US, telemarketers are not allowed to call those mobile exchanges without previous relations.
So, technically, you can identify a US mobile number by its exchange. You just need to have one of the telecoms network routing guides (TPM is a good one, published by Telcordia), or really good memory, to know what exchanges are wireless.
Given the growth of walled gardens, of email attacks, of DoS, of more traffic channeled through fewer fat pipes owned by fewer public/non-profit organizations, is this still possible?
My interpretations of my own memories are my own. We have always interpreted our own existence based on the ways in which we threaded our own sense of the meaning of what we have lived.
Now some punk from Microsoft is trying to suggest that some windowsified version of iPhoto is better for my own interpretation of my past?
Sure, it sometimes has problems with walls, but for the kind of situation you're describing, and from my own anecdotal experience, a few strategically located access points may work even without additional booster antennas.
Think of it this way. If these houses share a wall, and one access point can "see" an access point on the other side of the wall, then you could theoretically have two access points talking to each other, and then a third talking to the second, and so on. Within each of the houses, computers could access the network enabled by that point through whatever means (cable or wireless within the house) were deemed appropriate.
Read this writer's own experience with multiple walls over 100 meters for some insight.
You could also try using existing power lines to build a network. I don't know which of these tools are approved for use in the UK, but I imagine there are at least some solutions that can make use of existing cabling.
Alton, Which would be on the top of your list for the cooking implement that would solve all of your as-of-yet unresolved cooking dilemmas, if only someone were to invent it?
A company called Altarus has a network protocol optimization tool that includes a FIPS-certified encryption mechanism.
We've used it to develop applications running on top of 802.11b networks, and aside from being able to address the security case, the transmission protocol does a bang-up job at optimizing data transmission over IP. The SDK is also pretty good.
ah yes, sometimes I attribute my shreds of geekdom to the occasional middle-school dance where i got tired of dancing with the tall girls and went up to the computer lab which was open for games and such...
i think having troubleshot the appletalk network to let us clobber each other with callboxes and big spheres got me my first job
Slashdot Mirror
It's like voice instant messaging.
Or like instant voice multicast to a group of people.
It's also a billing thing--it's cheaper to use because two parties aren't being billed for two-way airtime during an exchange--they're only billed for the time during which there was actual transmission. Conversations tend to be shorter, so monthly bills tend to be lower.
Um:. html].1 7/HNnexte l_1.html].
b lobs/ret rieve.cgi?attachment_id=337871&native_or_pdf=p df
1 - GPS on all new phones released since Nov 2002 [http://www.mostlycreativeworkshop.com/article123
2 - MIDP 2.0 on all new java phones launching after October [http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-978294.html] -- one of the first MIDP 2.0 rollouts in the world, probably the first in the US.
3 - Plans for phones that swap between 802.11 and iDEN network
[http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/
But perhaps when you say 21st century you mean shiny?
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/
Something like this became a tradition in Washington DC. Every year, AOLTimeWarnerHBOSmithklineBeechamConagra sponsors a showing of a free vintage movie on the National Mall.
A few years ago, as the pre-movie HBO trailer rolled on (the camera pan over a model town swiniging up to the stars swirling to make the HBO logo), someone decided that the earnest 1980s you-can-do-it music deserved some attention, and jumped up and started dancing to it as if he were a marionette being handled by someone with a bad case of Tourette's. Of the thousands gathered to see this film, some were bound to join. It kind of became a thing that was done during that year's series.
The following year, it started happening again, with more people jumping up and dancing like spastic marionettes. And the year after. This week, i would guess that about 1/3 of the people there pounced up at the chance to rejoice in the corporate theme song.
In a nutshell, yes. You've already told your customers to "take a look at x" in multiple ways by the time you sell your software.
By the time you sell a desktop app, you've consciously or implicitly come up with recommended hardware, configurations, service providers. You'll have implicitly made choices about:
Desktop hardware: you'll have specified minimum requirements because you probably don't want to even try supporting your new and sharp 3D topographic elevation GIS app on a Mac LC.
OS: Even if you've chosen Java (and certainly if you've chosen not-java), you've made a decision about the operating systems you'll support. You've made implicit and perhaps explicit statements about what configurations you know work. You've probably even tested on a dozen of them. (Probably the only vendor nowadays where you could try to get away with write once, test once would be Apple, and even that would be a bad idea.)
Network: You've made protocol choices, network architecture choices, all sorts of things that constrain your customers already. Or do you want to support your app if it happened to not work over X.25?
The wireless world offers, even then, some advantages:
- device vendors tend to standardize across their product line on one particular flavor of implementation
- carriers tend to standardize on one set of device vendors, and many vendors will fit on different carriers
- individual carriers tend to enforce one specific approach to application design, testing and deployment to eliminate the potential for apps that don't work on their phones, because when apps fail on their phones (certainly consumer apps), consumers tend to call the carrier's support line and not the software vendor's support line.
Vagary,
There are plenty of full-blown, client-side, enterprise quality J2ME apps that run on cell phones, that can use public IP addresses on the Internet (yes, I've seen HTTP servers on a cell phone and cell phones with domain names), and that can do what staid enterprise developers would call Cool Things (barcode scanning, biometric IDs, on-phone GPS location tracking, voice recognition, phone-to-phone data streaming, FIPS-II crypto).
Not only that, these apps sell and companies make money off of the software.
Take a look at the various APIs that the actual handset manufacturers and network carriers make available--you may get a sense that J2ME two years ago and J2ME today are two different beasts.
You may be looking at the wrong devices. I recommend you take a look at Motorola's iDEN phones site--the J2ME implementation of various APIs in the phones are very complete and robust, including serial port interfaces, a half-dozen network protocols, crypto, interfaces to GPS hardware, etc. Yes, many of these are Motorola proprietary classes, but if you look at the MIDP 2.0 spec a lot of those proprietary features have become part of the general MIDP API.
Full disclosure: I work for Nextel. I also run their Developer Program.
How about a cell phone that has J2ME and that also has a barcode scanner that it can talk to?
/ ba rcode_psm20i.html
http://www.symbol.com/products/barcode_scanners
...they'd know that to get better searches you narrow down, not generalize. The general approach of search engines of telling you to "generalize" your search terms is a poor approach to addressing their limited indexing--it's created searchers who don't realize that words have multiple definitions and that only their context gives us a clue as to which definition to use.
If this Salon author were a student of mine (not that I'm a teacher) I'd have slapped an F on his research methods paper.
What foolishness.
No, silly, it'd be SCAT.
I could set aside moral relativism and express my opinion on the subject, but I'm sure others will jump in...
Ah, but you see, they had fava beans, fish, nuts, alpacas... and well, if the potato is a bad staple, then the scientists at the Inernational Potato Center in Lima have been wasting their time for the last 30-odd years.
Don't forget potatoes as a staple of the natives of the Americas. Sure, they're not grain, but they've been used as a high-carb source of starch and gluten for centuries.
Thank the Inkas for potatoes (not the Irish, mind you), for monstrously gigantic ears of purple corn, for understanding that llamas are better than wheels when you're dealing with steep cliffs.
Whomever said that the Inkas believed the Spaniards were gods, "pay manan unanchainku paykuna umayux karqaku" -- he does not understand how intelligent the Inkas were.
You're describing what is known in businesstalk(TM) as "communities of practice"--groups of people with very specific domains of expertise who interact with each other in various fora and who thus exchange information that becomes collective knowledge (knowledge=information that can be acted upon).
For these "advanced" communities to thrive--i.e., for the advanced members of a community of practice to continue to be involved--the advanced nature of the group needs to be maintained, and the new users need to be assimilated into the group so that they don't disrupt that arrangement.
One way to do this is to bring new users in little by little by invitation. Another is to establish some form of mentoring/buddy system in which new people are brought into the group's culture. A third way is to establish listen-but-speak-not arrangements.
While most of these things are possible in Usenet in one way or another (moderated groups, walled garden groups, informal social arrangements between members, etc.), they require a high level of human administration.
Without some members (not necessarily the most advanced users) wanting to do this major/minor amount of administration to maintain the value of the advanced community, the community will tend to fall apart due to what you describe.
Why does Slashdot not collapse, for example, under a similar structure, and why do you still read intelligent advanced insight on this site? The moderation and metamoderation tools tend to keep the good stuff floating to the top, keeping the advanced users interested, while providing enough social structure around it for fools to be kept at bay and new folks to be acculturated reasonably successfully.
The Darth gargoyle was carved and placed on the Cathedral in the 1980s--it was carved by master sculptor Palumbo (RIP) by a young lad who received honorable mention in a "Design-a-gargoyle" contest sponsored by World magazine (National Geographic for children).
The winner was a smiling gargoyle toting an umbrella.
Well, Direct Connect doesn't use a telephone number, it uses a separate kind of internal routing number to connect those calls.
N-xtel's on schedule to roll out the functionality nationwide by end of this year.
There are discussions of other push-to-talk technologies being released by other carriers-- VoIP, AFAIK from reading the trades.
(I work for N-xtel -- don't tell anyone)
Rus,
Well, yes and no.
In the US, wireless carriers have been given sets of exchanges [(area code) Exchange-line] that are used for mobile communications only. I'm not sure of the causal link (is it a perk or a reason?) but a relation to having this in place is that, thanks to the "called party pays for airtime" model we use in the US, telemarketers are not allowed to call those mobile exchanges without previous relations.
So, technically, you can identify a US mobile number by its exchange. You just need to have one of the telecoms network routing guides (TPM is a good one, published by Telcordia), or really good memory, to know what exchanges are wireless.
Nah, I pulled it out of Tobey Maguire lovers' collective arses...
Sounds like a winning lifestyle endorsement to me...
Given the growth of walled gardens, of email attacks, of DoS, of more traffic channeled through fewer fat pipes owned by fewer public/non-profit organizations, is this still possible?
Now some punk from Microsoft is trying to suggest that some windowsified version of iPhoto is better for my own interpretation of my past?
My polite indignation knows no bounds.
Think of it this way. If these houses share a wall, and one access point can "see" an access point on the other side of the wall, then you could theoretically have two access points talking to each other, and then a third talking to the second, and so on. Within each of the houses, computers could access the network enabled by that point through whatever means (cable or wireless within the house) were deemed appropriate.
Read this writer's own experience with multiple walls over 100 meters for some insight.
You could also try using existing power lines to build a network. I don't know which of these tools are approved for use in the UK, but I imagine there are at least some solutions that can make use of existing cabling.
Alton,
Which would be on the top of your list for the cooking implement that would solve all of your as-of-yet unresolved cooking dilemmas, if only someone were to invent it?
You should check out the pot roast episode... gravy was a pretty extensive theme.
A company called Altarus has a network protocol optimization tool that includes a FIPS-certified encryption mechanism.
We've used it to develop applications running on top of 802.11b networks, and aside from being able to address the security case, the transmission protocol does a bang-up job at optimizing data transmission over IP. The SDK is also pretty good.
ah yes, sometimes I attribute my shreds of geekdom to the occasional middle-school dance where i got tired of dancing with the tall girls and went up to the computer lab which was open for games and such...
i think having troubleshot the appletalk network to let us clobber each other with callboxes and big spheres got me my first job