I think you are confusing functions and features. Certainly features such as voice activated calling (when it works) make a phone easier to use. Functions, on the otherhand, quite often make it more complicated to use... especially if you want to make them easy to access along side other functions.
Meh, I think the distinction between functions and features is a semantic one at best. What makes voice activated calling any more of a feature than a function? I realize that adding either can easily lead to UI clutter, but it doesn't necessarily have to. I mention Apple because they seem to do the best job at keeping a UI clean and simple without sacrificing utility. While I'm not sure this is the best example, compare iTunes with something like Windows Media Player. Here we see something that has more features/functions and yet is subjectively much easier to use.
My point is, a phone can make phone calls and store numbers AND include other features without adding to the clutter. The problem is, if these "features" (taking and sending pictures, downloading games and ringtones, etc.) aren't IN YOUR FACE, Joe Sixpack probably isn't going to use them as much as the telcos would like. Like I said, I'm sure a "simple" mode for cell phones would be trivial to implement. Something that strips unnecessary menu items and limits the phone to its essential tasks.
The problem is, if I'm a telco, and your phone makes it easy for my profit margin^W^Wcustomers to disregard or ignore all the flashy widgets I'm trying to sell, I'm not going to bundle your cell phone in any of my contracts. The sad truth is, ultimately, it's not about you getting a solid reliable phone that does the bare minimum. It's about the service providers fattening their wallets and milking you for every penny they can get.
As more functions are built in to the mobile phone, by definition the interface gets more complex.
I call bullshit. I'm not sure what "definition" you're using, but a given interface does not have to become more complex as functions get added. As a matter of face, added features can simplify a given interface. I can't think of something specific atm, but I'm sure you can find an example or two in Cupertino somewhere.
I think the problem lies in the business model of the service providers rather than general ineptitude on the part of phone makers. I for one would be perfectly happy with a phone with a billion unnecessary gizmos, doodad, and whatnots, as long as there's a way to get them out of sight the minute they become intrusive. However, I think a lot of the clutter of most mobile phones comes from the exorbitant pay-out-the-ass-for-data plans that service providers are making a killing on. I doubt it would be difficult to design a phone interface that provides a "simple" mode that hides all unnecessary or obtrusive functions out of sight. But ask yourself the question, would it be as profitable?
Oh my god. For the love of all that is good and holy, mod parent up. dcloues, you have no idea how hard your point hit home. This is quite possibly the most insightful post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Let me share...
I am currently a undergraduate at Muhlenberg College, and have been notably unhappy with their program. What appeared to be a friendly, small liberal arts college when I applied a year and a half ago has so far been rather disappointing. As a matter of background, I should note that my whole life I have been a chronic underacheiver. Grade school was a joke, middle school was tediously easy, and in high school I averaged B's in what were the most "challenging" courses available without batting an eyelash. I've rarely needed to do homework, and have been dubbed "gifted" by both my teachers and my peers. Despite my potential, my last semester GPA was only slightly above a 1 and my return to the college for the fall semester hinges on a last-ditch appeal to the college president to overturn a judicial ruling of a semester's suspension.
Why is this, do you ask? Well from my year's experience at the college, the "liberal arts" philosophy was difficult to find. While the school offers a variety of courses from a vast array of disciplines, so far the courses themselves have been relatively one-dimensional. Even as a math major, there's only so much vector calculus and normal distribution I can take. As a result, I slacked off entirely too much and got distracted with not-so-wholesome extracurricular activities.
Obviously I would be wrong to put the blame for my failures (entirely) on the academic program at Muhlenberg. However, I do attribute some of it to a schism in the way that I prefer to learn and the way that I was taught. Don't get me wrong, I truly enjoy learning. I've have easily spent hours of my time reading Slashdot for the lastest tech "news." Even more tellingly, I'll often get sidetracked by a link to Wikipedia regarding some obscure technology. Many times I'll find an interesting article, and several middle-clicks later, I'll have a dozen tabs open on a variety of tangentially related, yet incredibly interesting and informative topics. As such, I find rote regurgitation of facts and formulas to be wholly uninteresting. Quite frankly, an equation in my calc book is irrelevant to everything that isn't calc. More importantly, that equation will be in my calc book for all eternity, and if I ever need it, I'll know where to find it.
AFAICT, most sciences are only useful as they pertain to other sciences. As a math student, I know that math for the sake of math, as interesting as it may be, is generally irrelevant to anyone but a mathematician (and only for curiosity's sake). It doesn't matter what the deriviative a given function is; what matters is the significance of that finding. For example, without leaving the realm of mathematics, we know that the derivative of a function is its slope at a given point. Similarly, the integral represents the signed area between the function and the axis of the independent variable. On its face, this knowledge is relatively useless. If we travel into the realm of physics, however, we learn that the derivative of an object's position function gives us its velocity, and the integral of a force/distance function gives the amount of work done. In context of physics, math has a tangible meaning.
For those slashdotters keeping score, here comes the ever-insightful car analogy. Suppose you built a car from scratch, and knew everything about its operation as confined to your garage, but never had an opportunity to drive it. Sure you were intimately familiar with engine timings, gearbox ratios and what have you, but were completely oblivious to its operation under normal road conditions. After spending time with the car on a test track, your world opens up to learn how to actually drive the car. But still, were you to be thrown into midtown Manhattan traffic, you would be hopeless. See where I'm going w
In one experiment, Baughman used alcohol to fuel the movement of these artificial muscles. His team coated the shape memory wire with a chemical called a catalyst. When alcohol was added, it reacted with the oxygen in the air, burning up and releasing heat.
While the whole alcohol bit makes for a great article, the technology is really in the wire. The only purpose for the alcohol here is in an exothermic reaction that causes the memory wire to heat up and contract. Don't we already have a million ways of doing that that don't prompt the requisite Futurama jokes?
I also fail to see the promise in this technology. It apparently has its advantages over fluid power (at least enough to warrant researching), but lacks reliability and efficiency? A quick venture to Wikipedia tells us "these materials are not currently appropriate for applications such as robotics or artificial muscles, due to energy inefficiency, slow response times, and large hysteresis." AFAICT there are still far too many questions keeping this tech from prime time.
For instance, how many contractions do you get before the material is exhausted? Is it like a rechargable battery where after a certain number of contractions you get ever diminishing returns from the wire?
What effect do the chemical reagents have on the physical properties of the wire? Is there a pair of exothermic reagents that will not corrode or degrade the wire over the long term?
What about the strength of the wire? Can you accurately fine-tune it to exert a controlled force over a given distance? What about releasing the tension in the wire? Would that require another force acting in an opposite direction, or do you just have to wait for the wire to cool off?
Have you looked at SQL-Ledger as a possibility? It's definitely more oriented towards an accounting side of things, but it does feature inventory control among its many strengths.
And obviously you can't beat the price of FOSS. Plus the support is very reasonably priced as well.
From TFA:
This lends support to the speculation that [the parent post] is not [orginal] at all, in spite of how [slashflood] is trying to use it to drum up [karma]. [...] And shame on [karma-whores everywhere], [slashflood] in particular, for its attempts to [get cheap karma] by passing off [something copied-and-pasted from TFA] as something [insightful].
(emphasis mine =)
Give http://127.0.0.1/bankofamerica/mylogin.php a shot. From what I gather, it uses a super-secret unbreakable open source, ROT26, GNU/Linux, AES, one-time pad, AJAX, NSA, quantum encryption mechanism that guarantees your identity will never be stolen.
Ya know, that's truly a good idea. I realize that the/. sentiment towards patents is a very negative one, but we all too often forget that because of patents some serious innovation has occured that would not have without them. The entire pharmaceutical industry, as flawed as it is, would not exist without the protection patents provide them. Millions of dollars of research is risked to treat illnesses and help up cope with our daily afflictions, and would not have been created if there was no possibility to amortize such an investment over the length of the patent.
Here the concept of intellectual property is tainted with visions of patent trolls "inventing" such gems as the double click and the hyperlink, however there is room for true innovation in the biotech industry. It is still a very young science and once the obvious patents are dealt with (eg "The use of carbon to create reeally small robots") serious headway can be made. Imagine the possibilities of nanorobots to treatvascular disease, physical trauma, and
biological aging. (Links shamelessly ripped from the wikipedia article.) Would such innovation seem possible without the protection patents give to the investors in such high-risk (not to mention expensive) endeavors?
like in the movies where magical devices "hack" systems?
It's sensationalist bullshit
Exactly. "Generic USB Device Can Be Used to Copy Data" just doesn't generate ad revenue. Add an iProduct, a 1337 h@x0r script, and some intentionally misleading nonsense about security vulnerabilities, however, and you have an instant headline.
In capitalist America, headlines create news [/not sarcasm]
The social-influence group was further divided into eight separate, non-interactive "worlds." Members of each world could not see the decisions of the other seven. The idea behind this was to observe multiple outcomes for the same songs and bands.
"If you look at Britney Spears, some people say she is really good. Others say she isn't good, she's just lucky," Salganik told LiveScience. "But by having just one argument, it's impossible to distinguish. However, if you have 10 worlds, and she's popular in all 10, then you can say she's actually good. But if she's only good in one, then you could say it was due to luck."
Although different songs were hits in each world, popularity was still the deciding factor, although the "best" songs never did very badly and the "worst" songs never did very well.
What you missed is the fact that "group B" was in fact subdivided into eight distinct, independent sub-groups. Rather than determining "WHETHER OR NOT the ratings were actually true" (Who is to decide whether a song is good? Critics? Fans? Other bands?) what the researchers did was take the same independent ratings (from group A) and give them to each subset of group B. It's not surprising that the "best" songs generally did well and the "worst" ones generally did poorly. What is notable is that different songs were hits in each "world," based (presumably) on the same set of independent data.
taking the warnings off doesnt help when a worm installed across several thousand idiots starts DOSsing a site im trying to get to. licking a 110v wire shouldnt knock my power out.
regardless, it looks like just another silly aim worm (albeit with a festive holiday flair).
A report prepared by a Transportation Department-funded program in Washington state says the GPS bugs must be made "tamper proof" and the vehicle should be disabled if the bugs are disconnected.
"This can be achieved by building in connections to the vehicle ignition circuit so that failure to receive a moving GPS signal after some default period of vehicle operation indicates attempts to defeat the GPS antenna," the report says.
Privacy issues aside, the problem with this concept is the technological limitations inherent to the system.
1) What are the chances that these GPS bugs will stay "tamper proof" for long? Something tells me a few bridged wires or a $10 mod chip will ultimately make this technology useless.
2) What if this GPS tracker malfunctions? What if the driver goes into an area without GPS coverage for any prolonged period of time? Will the engine die leaving the vehicle unoperable? What safeguards (if any) would prevent off-roaders from being stuck in the wilderness unable to drive to safety?
3) Authentication. Who's to say the GPS dot racking up mileage under your name is really coming from your car? What safeguards would be in place to prevent the theft and/or tampering of these trackers? Won't these safeguards be just another potential point of failure?
4) They plan on making this mandatory?!? Pardon me, but what's wrong with setting up checkpoints every few dozen miles on public highways requiring motorists to pay a small fee to cover the cost of highway maintenance. Hell, we can even automate this process with a small RFID tag that automatically bills your credit card every month.
Sounds like a cute idea, but I wouldnt put my money on this thing going anywhere.
From TFA: TeleGeography found 2.7 mln US VOIP subscribers nationwide in Q2 2005, compared with just 440,000 in Q2 2004. The revenue generated from consumer VoIP services remained relatively small, at $220 mln
The $220 million figure may be derived from just Q2 sales figures. Using this, the number doesn't seem as suspect.
$220 million / 2.7 million users = $81.48 / quarter
$81.48 per year / 3 months = $27.16 / month
Given prices for VoIP being between around $20-40/month, an average of $27.16 sounds about right.
Slashdot Mirror
...and tell this blogger that googlewildspeculation.com is still available.
Meh, I think the distinction between functions and features is a semantic one at best. What makes voice activated calling any more of a feature than a function? I realize that adding either can easily lead to UI clutter, but it doesn't necessarily have to. I mention Apple because they seem to do the best job at keeping a UI clean and simple without sacrificing utility. While I'm not sure this is the best example, compare iTunes with something like Windows Media Player. Here we see something that has more features/functions and yet is subjectively much easier to use.
My point is, a phone can make phone calls and store numbers AND include other features without adding to the clutter. The problem is, if these "features" (taking and sending pictures, downloading games and ringtones, etc.) aren't IN YOUR FACE, Joe Sixpack probably isn't going to use them as much as the telcos would like. Like I said, I'm sure a "simple" mode for cell phones would be trivial to implement. Something that strips unnecessary menu items and limits the phone to its essential tasks.
The problem is, if I'm a telco, and your phone makes it easy for my profit margin^W^Wcustomers to disregard or ignore all the flashy widgets I'm trying to sell, I'm not going to bundle your cell phone in any of my contracts. The sad truth is, ultimately, it's not about you getting a solid reliable phone that does the bare minimum. It's about the service providers fattening their wallets and milking you for every penny they can get.
I call bullshit. I'm not sure what "definition" you're using, but a given interface does not have to become more complex as functions get added. As a matter of face, added features can simplify a given interface. I can't think of something specific atm, but I'm sure you can find an example or two in Cupertino somewhere.
I think the problem lies in the business model of the service providers rather than general ineptitude on the part of phone makers. I for one would be perfectly happy with a phone with a billion unnecessary gizmos, doodad, and whatnots, as long as there's a way to get them out of sight the minute they become intrusive. However, I think a lot of the clutter of most mobile phones comes from the exorbitant pay-out-the-ass-for-data plans that service providers are making a killing on. I doubt it would be difficult to design a phone interface that provides a "simple" mode that hides all unnecessary or obtrusive functions out of sight. But ask yourself the question, would it be as profitable?
I am currently a undergraduate at Muhlenberg College, and have been notably unhappy with their program. What appeared to be a friendly, small liberal arts college when I applied a year and a half ago has so far been rather disappointing. As a matter of background, I should note that my whole life I have been a chronic underacheiver. Grade school was a joke, middle school was tediously easy, and in high school I averaged B's in what were the most "challenging" courses available without batting an eyelash. I've rarely needed to do homework, and have been dubbed "gifted" by both my teachers and my peers. Despite my potential, my last semester GPA was only slightly above a 1 and my return to the college for the fall semester hinges on a last-ditch appeal to the college president to overturn a judicial ruling of a semester's suspension.
Why is this, do you ask? Well from my year's experience at the college, the "liberal arts" philosophy was difficult to find. While the school offers a variety of courses from a vast array of disciplines, so far the courses themselves have been relatively one-dimensional. Even as a math major, there's only so much vector calculus and normal distribution I can take. As a result, I slacked off entirely too much and got distracted with not-so-wholesome extracurricular activities.
Obviously I would be wrong to put the blame for my failures (entirely) on the academic program at Muhlenberg. However, I do attribute some of it to a schism in the way that I prefer to learn and the way that I was taught. Don't get me wrong, I truly enjoy learning. I've have easily spent hours of my time reading Slashdot for the lastest tech "news." Even more tellingly, I'll often get sidetracked by a link to Wikipedia regarding some obscure technology. Many times I'll find an interesting article, and several middle-clicks later, I'll have a dozen tabs open on a variety of tangentially related, yet incredibly interesting and informative topics. As such, I find rote regurgitation of facts and formulas to be wholly uninteresting. Quite frankly, an equation in my calc book is irrelevant to everything that isn't calc. More importantly, that equation will be in my calc book for all eternity, and if I ever need it, I'll know where to find it.
AFAICT, most sciences are only useful as they pertain to other sciences. As a math student, I know that math for the sake of math, as interesting as it may be, is generally irrelevant to anyone but a mathematician (and only for curiosity's sake). It doesn't matter what the deriviative a given function is; what matters is the significance of that finding. For example, without leaving the realm of mathematics, we know that the derivative of a function is its slope at a given point. Similarly, the integral represents the signed area between the function and the axis of the independent variable. On its face, this knowledge is relatively useless. If we travel into the realm of physics, however, we learn that the derivative of an object's position function gives us its velocity, and the integral of a force/distance function gives the amount of work done. In context of physics, math has a tangible meaning.
For those slashdotters keeping score, here comes the ever-insightful car analogy. Suppose you built a car from scratch, and knew everything about its operation as confined to your garage, but never had an opportunity to drive it. Sure you were intimately familiar with engine timings, gearbox ratios and what have you, but were completely oblivious to its operation under normal road conditions. After spending time with the car on a test track, your world opens up to learn how to actually drive the car. But still, were you to be thrown into midtown Manhattan traffic, you would be hopeless. See where I'm going w
While the whole alcohol bit makes for a great article, the technology is really in the wire. The only purpose for the alcohol here is in an exothermic reaction that causes the memory wire to heat up and contract. Don't we already have a million ways of doing that that don't prompt the requisite Futurama jokes?
I also fail to see the promise in this technology. It apparently has its advantages over fluid power (at least enough to warrant researching), but lacks reliability and efficiency? A quick venture to Wikipedia tells us "these materials are not currently appropriate for applications such as robotics or artificial muscles, due to energy inefficiency, slow response times, and large hysteresis." AFAICT there are still far too many questions keeping this tech from prime time.
For instance, how many contractions do you get before the material is exhausted? Is it like a rechargable battery where after a certain number of contractions you get ever diminishing returns from the wire?
What effect do the chemical reagents have on the physical properties of the wire? Is there a pair of exothermic reagents that will not corrode or degrade the wire over the long term?
What about the strength of the wire? Can you accurately fine-tune it to exert a controlled force over a given distance? What about releasing the tension in the wire? Would that require another force acting in an opposite direction, or do you just have to wait for the wire to cool off?
Sounds cool. Just not terribly promising.
And obviously you can't beat the price of FOSS. Plus the support is very reasonably priced as well.
From TFA: This lends support to the speculation that [the parent post] is not [orginal] at all, in spite of how [slashflood] is trying to use it to drum up [karma]. [...] And shame on [karma-whores everywhere], [slashflood] in particular, for its attempts to [get cheap karma] by passing off [something copied-and-pasted from TFA] as something [insightful]. (emphasis mine =)
Functionality may be limited.
Any chance this will be compatible?
Here the concept of intellectual property is tainted with visions of patent trolls "inventing" such gems as the double click and the hyperlink, however there is room for true innovation in the biotech industry. It is still a very young science and once the obvious patents are dealt with (eg "The use of carbon to create reeally small robots") serious headway can be made. Imagine the possibilities of nanorobots to treatvascular disease, physical trauma, and biological aging. (Links shamelessly ripped from the wikipedia article.) Would such innovation seem possible without the protection patents give to the investors in such high-risk (not to mention expensive) endeavors?
...that nobody ever reads the EULA. Hell, maybe this is that long awaited precedent saying theyre not legally binding ;)
It's sensationalist bullshit
Exactly. "Generic USB Device Can Be Used to Copy Data" just doesn't generate ad revenue. Add an iProduct, a 1337 h@x0r script, and some intentionally misleading nonsense about security vulnerabilities, however, and you have an instant headline.
In capitalist America, headlines create news [/not sarcasm]
What you missed is the fact that "group B" was in fact subdivided into eight distinct, independent sub-groups. Rather than determining "WHETHER OR NOT the ratings were actually true" (Who is to decide whether a song is good? Critics? Fans? Other bands?) what the researchers did was take the same independent ratings (from group A) and give them to each subset of group B. It's not surprising that the "best" songs generally did well and the "worst" ones generally did poorly. What is notable is that different songs were hits in each "world," based (presumably) on the same set of independent data.
You realize where you're posting this, right?
They did. It just overheated.
Gee, only 11?
regardless, it looks like just another silly aim worm (albeit with a festive holiday flair).
save your enthusiasm! for the dupe!
yeah, but google doesnt get the rss icon
You must be new here ;)
Privacy issues aside, the problem with this concept is the technological limitations inherent to the system.
Sounds like a cute idea, but I wouldnt put my money on this thing going anywhere.
Strange thing, they do fight over which is better, vi or that other editor. They're nerds.
Patents my friend, patents.
The $220 million figure may be derived from just Q2 sales figures. Using this, the number doesn't seem as suspect.
$220 million / 2.7 million users = $81.48 / quarter
$81.48 per year / 3 months = $27.16 / month
Given prices for VoIP being between around $20-40/month, an average of $27.16 sounds about right.