Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Tom Metro wrote: > White House: It's Time to Legalize Cellphone Unlocking > http://allthingsd.com/20130304/white-house-its-time-to-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking/ > > The actual more troubling aspect was that carriers were leveraging the > (horrid) DMCA "anticircumvention" provision to make it a criminal > offense to take the steps necessary to unlock your phone without carrier > permission. > > ...the White House said was: > > "The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that > consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking > criminal or other penalties." Legislators trip over each other rushing to introduce legislation to legalize unlocking of cell pones: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/5/4068602/senator-klobuchar-cell-phone-unlocking-bill ...Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has announced that she will introduce a bill this week to address the issue. ...her legislation will "get rid of the ban on unlocking cellphones." ...several lawmakers today said they want to pass legislation to legalize cellphone unlocking, including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is introducing a bill named the Wireless Device Independence Act. Several other lawmakers are said to be interested in passing legislation to legalize cellphone unlocking, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), Ranking Member on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee, also announced her intentions to introduce legislation "eliminating the ban on unlocking cell phones and other mobile devices." (That was an article from last week. I haven't heard if any of those efforts went anywhere.) Interesting what a petition can lead to. The article makes no mention of any of the proposed legislation taking action to repeal or diminish the DMCA. -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
What the phone did so far today: Upcoming snow storm report email check twitter check calendar for dental exam Oops, bad data in the calendar street and office # for said exam GPS to get to auto body place car tunes while doing GPS Useful stuff, Doug ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
I too, have become aware of my rights -- or lack thereof -- and am concerned. But, hey, from the blueprints, the resettlement camps look nice and cozy. Maybe I can join 'em, and land a job as a "internment operations specialist" ;-> --- richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: From: Rich Pieri To: discuss@blu.org Subject: Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:46:28 -0500 On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:38:44 -0500 Kent Borg wrote: > That I can believe. That might be why the Foxconn workers are > sometimes thought to be less than happy. They're actually paid quite well relative to China's general economy, cost of living, and competition from Taiwan. They're unhappy because they're becoming aware of their rights -- or lack thereof -- compared to workers in Western manufacturing markets. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:38:44 -0500 Kent Borg wrote: > That I can believe. That might be why the Foxconn workers are > sometimes thought to be less than happy. They're actually paid quite well relative to China's general economy, cost of living, and competition from Taiwan. They're unhappy because they're becoming aware of their rights -- or lack thereof -- compared to workers in Western manufacturing markets. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:49:41 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > isupply and ifixit buy samples, identify all the parts, get > quotes from suppliers, and make reasonable estimates for > assembly costs and custom component costs. Then they show you > the various estimates that they make. Indeed. It's not iSupply saying things like, "it costs this many dollars to make an iPhone." It's iSupply saying things like this: http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/pages/Many-iPhone-5-Components-Change-But-Most-Suppliers-Remain-the-Same-Teardown-Reveals.aspx Their teardowns and analyses are quite thorough. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Rich Braun wrote: > I saw the Obama administration weighed in on one aspect of affordability this > week: after another government agency declared that lawsuits by carriers > against consumers who unlock their under-contract phones can go forward... See: White House: It's Time to Legalize Cellphone Unlocking http://allthingsd.com/20130304/white-house-its-time-to-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking/ and: Public Knowledge Applauds White House for Making the Right Call on Cellphone Unlocking http://publicknowledge.org/public-knowledge-applauds-white-house-making-right I was not aware of their being any actual lawsuits. Having civil lawsuits over this would actually be an improvement. The actual more troubling aspect was that carriers were leveraging the (horrid) DMCA "anticircumvention" provision to make it a criminal offense to take the steps necessary to unlock your phone without carrier permission. See: How "Anticircumvention" Works Right Now http://internetblueprint.org/issues/permit-lawful-uses-of-content/ Still, I'm not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for unlocking a cell phone (though people have been jailed for violating DMCA for other things). But that's beside the point. The DMCA needs to go. > ...the Administration accepted an online petition protesting such > policy and declared that such lawsuits are lunacy. Net effect: > zero. Actually what the White House said was: "The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties." which they intend to accomplish with "a range of approaches...including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation." Plus having the FCC to pressure carriers not to use the DMCA in this fashion. (Still troubling that the "no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation." qualifier is added. The criminal law aspect should be eliminated unconditionally, which may or may not be their intent. Could just be sloppy wording.) It's a step in the right direction...if something materializes, but the fundamental problem is that the DMCA needs to be decriminalized. Copyright holders have no business wielding criminal charges to protect their profits. Cell carriers already have adequate recourse if you unlock your phone without their consent and switch carriers. They charge you an early termination fee. (Practically speaking, for now, this is in fact a no-op, like Rich said. Supposedly carriers are fairly willing to unlock phones when asked. Of course with 3 out of 4 US carriers using incompatible bands, switching carriers is impossible domestically for most.) > ...ensuring that consumers pay for things indirectly, blunting the > effects of comparison-shopping. One thing the tech community could do to help this situation is every time you see a review for a cell phone that lists a subsidized price, write to the author or publisher requesting that they either list only the unsubsidized price, or the subsidized price along with the cumulative portion of the 2-year contract attributable to the hardware cost, showing the total cost of ownership. This is something that could actually be accomplished, doesn't depend on politicians (and thus can't be sidetracked by lobbyists), and would bring to light the real costs of smart phones. A $300 unlocked Nexus 4 will look pretty good compared to most alternatives. -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:34:55PM -0500, Theodore Ruegsegger wrote: > Rich Pieri wrote: > > "Rich Braun" wrote: > > > >> Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) > >> announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8, which if true > > > > BS. The box and box contents (charger, headphones) are eight bucks. > > Total BOM and manufacture costs for iPhone 5 ranges from $207 to $238 > > according to iSuppli's analysis. iPhone 4s BOM+manufacture costs run > > from $196 to $253. This is just the hardware components. It does not > > include software, licensing, royalties, advertising, shipping, and so > > forth. > > > > Welcome to the modern "news reporting" where journalistic integrity and > > basic fact-checking take a back seat to hype and ratings. > > I'm not familiar with iSuppli. Can you explain why you believe that > market-research firm's claims are more credible? > > It would certainly be useful to know the actual production cost > (incremental cost of mass-production, not a hypothetical one-shot or > prototype) of a smart phone, but dueling assertions doesn't get us any > closer to knowing. isupply and ifixit buy samples, identify all the parts, get quotes from suppliers, and make reasonable estimates for assembly costs and custom component costs. Then they show you the various estimates that they make. I tend to believe they're in the right ballpark. -dsr- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Rich Pieri wrote: > "Rich Braun" wrote: > >> Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) >> announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8, which if true > > BS. The box and box contents (charger, headphones) are eight bucks. > Total BOM and manufacture costs for iPhone 5 ranges from $207 to $238 > according to iSuppli's analysis. iPhone 4s BOM+manufacture costs run > from $196 to $253. This is just the hardware components. It does not > include software, licensing, royalties, advertising, shipping, and so > forth. > > Welcome to the modern "news reporting" where journalistic integrity and > basic fact-checking take a back seat to hype and ratings. I'm not familiar with iSuppli. Can you explain why you believe that market-research firm's claims are more credible? It would certainly be useful to know the actual production cost (incremental cost of mass-production, not a hypothetical one-shot or prototype) of a smart phone, but dueling assertions doesn't get us any closer to knowing. Ted ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:34:55 -0800 "Rich Braun" wrote: > Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) > announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8, which if true BS. The box and box contents (charger, headphones) are eight bucks. Total BOM and manufacture costs for iPhone 5 ranges from $207 to $238 according to iSuppli's analysis. iPhone 4s BOM+manufacture costs run from $196 to $253. This is just the hardware components. It does not include software, licensing, royalties, advertising, shipping, and so forth. Welcome to the modern "news reporting" where journalistic integrity and basic fact-checking take a back seat to hype and ratings. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/05/2013 02:10 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote: I believe that was actually the labor charges to assemble the iPhone from parts/subassemblies. I'm pretty sure that I remember reading something like that at the time. A quick google search finds at least one estimate of $15 for cost to manufacture. That I can believe. That might be why the Foxconn workers are sometimes thought to be less than happy. -kb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Kent Borg wrote: > On 03/05/2013 01:34 PM, Rich Braun wrote: >> >> Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) >> announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8 > > > That isn't plausible. Someone might have said it, but that doesn't make it > true. I believe that was actually the labor charges to assemble the iPhone from parts/subassemblies. I'm pretty sure that I remember reading something like that at the time. A quick google search finds at least one estimate of $15 for cost to manufacture. Bill Bogstad ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/05/2013 01:34 PM, Rich Braun wrote: Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8 That isn't plausible. Someone might have said it, but that doesn't make it true. -kb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
"Greg Rundlett (freephile)" noted: > The costs of smart phones are ridiculous. I saw the Obama administration weighed in on one aspect of affordability this week: after another government agency declared that lawsuits by carriers against consumers who unlock their under-contract phones can go forward, the Administration accepted an online petition protesting such policy and declared that such lawsuits are lunacy. Net effect: zero. Sometime last year a major news organization (I think it was ABC) announced that the build cost of an iPhone is US$8, which if true means the markup is over 98% of the inflated price. Last week's Time magazine devoted its entire news section to a single 24,000-word piece about the so-called chargemaster, which is the computerized price list used by hospitals to compute bills. Welcome to the modern price-gouging economy. Profiteers are finding ways to corner many markets and jack up prices by ensuring that consumers pay for things indirectly, blunting the effects of comparison-shopping. If you want better/cheaper mobile phones and service, alas you have to escape the boundaries of the USA to get beyond the reach of profiteers. -rich ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/04/2013 02:51 PM, Greg Rundlett (freephile) wrote: The costs of smart phones are ridiculous. Old timer that I am, if you had told the teenage edition of me that a device like my Galaxy Nexus would be available in my lifetime, I would have been rather wide-eyed with tons of questions about "HOW?!". The fact that this item is cheaper than my original TRS-80 Model 1, even with no adjustment for inflation, is stunning. From that perspective, I have a hard time seeing this hardware overpriced. Is the service overpriced? Maybe, but when the imaginary teenage-me had the celltower and back haul infrastructure described, he would guessed there would be no way he could ever afford it. Yet millions of Americans can afford both. To an old timer, this is stunning. The list of technologies necessary to make my phone work...it boggles my mind. -kb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
The costs of smart phones are ridiculous. I like having one, and I just bought a Nexus 4 to simultaneously get an advanced piece of hardware, avoid the lock-in of a contract and also lower my long-term costs. I believe having a pocket computer is already a necessity. But rather than help bridge the digital divide, the situation has only gotten worse. The major operators expect each family to spend $200/mo on cell service and another $200/mo on internet and content. Apparently everyone does because I pick my kids up at school and every 8th grader is walking around head-down with a phone. It used to be that you could connect your home to the internet for $20/mo and have unlimited access. You could also get a land line for ~$20/mo with unlimited local calling and or you could get a Vonage account for that same $20 with unlimited calling across the country. Now you are metered and filtered every which way. For example, Comcast sells Digital TV, Internet and Phone service (as three separate things across one pipe), with multiple additional charges for all kinds of features like TV "on demand". AT&T offers "family share" plans where they illustrate a fee of $190 / mo for two mobile devices plus a tablet and a hotspot. I'm paying $65/mo to Comcast for Internet only. I'm paying $15/mo to Vonage for a "land line". I'm paying $10/mo to Netflix, (plus $90/year to Amazon), plust $50/mo. to T-Mobile for prepaid wireless. In order to add a cell phone for my son it looks like it will be a minimum of $30/mo if I bring my own device. The best network coverage in my area (Salisbury, MA) comes from Verizon, and it's conceivable that I could get a phone, plus hotspot to have Internet, wireless communications. Then I would only have to pay Netflix and Amazon for additional content. But I've been abused by Verizon before. I will never be a Verizon customer again. I wish we had public broadband internet and wireless in this country. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 10:32 PM, Bill Horne wrote: The Amish elders don't forbid their flocks from using modern technology: they just keep it at arms length. They ask the faithful to avoid using electricity, because it requires men to work on the Sabbath, but when woodworking shops have a legitimate need for electric tools, they simply install a generator to power them, and shut it down at the end of the workday. I've heard that it's actually less expensive than getting power from the electric grid. While this is quite OT, Orthodox Jews also do not work on Sabbath and holidays.But, those I know set timers on their lightsand walk to Synagogue. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
> So I was hoping for a few other evaluations of phones, but that > hasn't appeared so far. Do others have suggestions for what are good > geek-friendly "smart phones" these days? I'm thinking of replacing my > old HTC-1 with something better, and wondering if it's possible to > make sense of the commercial hype. The friendliest phones for geeks are the Nexus phones bought directly from Google, because you get all the system updates right away. But that limits you to GSM carriers and means no LTE, and the Nexus phones lack an SD slot. (The Nexus 4 actually has an LTE-capable modem but doesn't officially support it.) Still, if your carrier of choice is T-Mobile or AT&T (or a virtual network carrier that uses one of those) the Nexus 4 is a good phone if you can actually get one. (Google seems to have trouble keeping them in stock.) The Galaxy Nexus (the previous generation of Nexus phone) is also friendly if you have the no-longer-available unlocked version from Google (it was replaced by the Nexus 4) but less so if you have one of the carrier versions. The big mobile conference is currently happening so there will be lots of new phones on the market soon; a Samsung Galaxy S4 is one of the upcoming devices, release date March 14. A new HTC One was announced recently ahd looks tempting with its 1080p screen; the second phone with one to my knowledge, the first was on the HTC-built Droid DNA which is a Verizon-only phone. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 03:49:55 wrote: > So I was hoping for a few other evaluations of phones, but that > hasn't appeared so far. Do others have suggestions for what are good > geek-friendly "smart phones" these days? I'm thinking of replacing my > old HTC-1 with something better, and wondering if it's possible to > make sense of the commercial hype. Ain't no such thing as a good smartphone. Every smartphone is a little box of compromises. Maybe you get a big, bright screen but the battery life sucks. Or you get decent battery life but the signal and voice quality are terrible. Maybe you get decent audio but you have no storage expansion. And regardless of what you buy you're locked into that vendor's ecosystem. And regardless of what you buy today, it'll be obsolete within a year if it isn't already hugging the trailing edge. If what you have works then replacing it is a waste of money. Keep it, maybe buy a new battery pack if it's not holding a charge. If it doesn't work then get something cheap from a low budget, no contract carrier like Page Plus or Tracfone. If you like what you get then you got something you like for cheap. If you don't then you're out a whole lot less than you would be with a major carrier. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Kent Borg wrote: | I am amazed at what an impressive *phone* my Galaxy Nexus is. Go back a | couple decades and think about it as a "telephone": wow! Okay, but the | telephone part is what I use least. Pretty amazing. | | -kb, the Kent who recommends only Nexus Androids so as to not get extra | manufacturer or carrier cruft. So I was hoping for a few other evaluations of phones, but that hasn't appeared so far. Do others have suggestions for what are good geek-friendly "smart phones" these days? I'm thinking of replacing my old HTC-1 with something better, and wondering if it's possible to make sense of the commercial hype. -- What if the Hokey Pokey really IS what it's all about? ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 3/1/2013 2:56 PM, Gordon Marx wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bill Horne wrote: My wife, who is a nurse, has a friend who works in the Public Health Service in Pennsylvania. They spent an unforgettable evening together in Lancaster, talking over old classmates and old memories, while we sat on the porch of a guest house, opposite a field where fireflies were as thick as the stars overhead, and where the only other sounds to be heard were made by horse-drawn wagons and carriages. As you know, it's impossible to remember things or talk to people face to face if you use any sort of technology whatsoever, or if anyone around you is doing so. Let's not be disingenuous, Gordon. We both know that that "always on" society and the expensive devices some people use to stay chained to it have created a parallel "Never Off" world whose adherents are condemned to be at work from the moment they wake up until the moment they fall asleep. It's a lot more relaxing and fulfilling to talk to an old friend when you know for a fact that your friend and your family and your church all expect you to stop working when the sun goes down. It's a lot more healthy to follow the diurnal rhythms which mankind was bound to for all but the last couple of centuries. The Amish elders don't forbid their flocks from using modern technology: they just keep it at arms length. They ask the faithful to avoid using electricity, because it requires men to work on the Sabbath, but when woodworking shops have a legitimate need for electric tools, they simply install a generator to power them, and shut it down at the end of the workday. I've heard that it's actually less expensive than getting power from the electric grid. I'm not Amish, and I made a decision a long time ago to make my living by tending machines. I accepted the requirements of being a technical professional: 3 AM wake-up calls, weekend call-outs, and even a terminal in my home that allowed me to solve problems without having to scrape ice or snow off my car, a decade before dial-up Internet connections were common. The reservations I and other readers have expressed are, to my mind, just a common-sense reflection of our desire to have a semblance of privacy and a modicum of quiet enjoyment while we're in our homes. If you choose to make yourself available to others at all times, that's /your/ choice. Bill Horne -- Bill Horne 339-364-8487 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 03:39 PM, Daniel Barrett wrote: On March 1, 2013, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: You can read a book on a smart phone. I'm glad it works for you, but reading a book on a screen is not to my taste. I've tried it on Kindle and iPad and they both give me a headache. YMMV. My 90 year old mother has a Kindle and an iPad and loves them. I much prefer my Nook Tablet to read from than a book. For one I can change the font and appearance. And for the most part can read in the sun (although it takes more battery). I've taken it on a couple of cruises. Takes up less space than 2 books. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Daniel Barrett wrote: Mark Woodward wrote: I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart phone. You're not the last. I still don't own one and perhaps never will. My days are already jam-packed with technology; the last thing I desire is to carry more technology around with me. I have a "smart" phone of sorts: it was a gift from a ham operator who I helped to connect his radio to his computer. He had just bought one with a bigger screen, and offered me his old one: I got to renew the $30/month "everything" rate, and since that is in the ballpark of what I was spending for voice service, I'm content to use it. #define LIFESTYLE_GENTLE_RANT 1 Other than GPS (which I have in my car), I have yet to encounter a single smartphone app that would make my life *happier*. This is not a troll so please don't respond with your dozen favorite apps. :-) My priorities are just different. You're preaching to the choir! I'm not sure if being wary of portable devices is a generational gap, a cultural divide, or a class difference. No matter: the fact is that I'm happiest when I *don't* have the phone on, since I really do think of it as an electronic leash. If I'm standing in a long, boring line waiting for something, I don't want to whip out a phone and surf the web or play a game. I'd rather think interesting thoughts, compose music in my head, read a book, or harangue the person responsible for the long delay. (I'd chat with the person next to me, but he's playing with his smartphone.) I take a paperback when I'm going to have to queue up for something. I am, however, prone to occasional fits of impatience, so if the clerks are gossiping, I'll just shout "I sure hope this doesn't take too long!". It always speeds up the line immensely. Work is insanely busy. So when I'm not at work, I like living slowly, cultivating patience. Enjoying a meal without the beep of a text message. I understand that others need to stay in contact with work 24x7. I've chosen not to live that way, and to accept whatever compromises come with that choice. (Even so, I'm having a successful career in the tech industry. It's a balancing act.) I feel your pain. When my brother-in-law was just out of college, he came home with a pager on his belt, back when they were still rare, and I said "You must be an important person now!". He smiled, and said "No, Bill: the important people *do* the beeping!" The only tough part is not having mobile access to my calendar. This means every so often, I make an appointment for a time that's already booked, so I have to phone later to change it. It's a small price to pay to stay unhooked. I think of it as "unchained". ;-) Bill -- Bill Horne 339-364-8487 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:53:56 -0500 Bill Horne wrote: > I think the Amish have a better take on things: the limiting factor, > after all, is human evolution. I don't think that I'd go quite that far. I'd be out of a job if I did and then I'd be stuck for acquiring food, shelter and so forth until I figured out something non-tech that I could do for a living. But you're right about the leash. How many of you carry a pager? I've ranted about that before. You should be able to find that in the list archives. The smartphone is just an another leach... I mean leash. But unlike the pager it is a leash that "we" have put around our own necks. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:32:49 -0500 Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote: > I think that Rich Pieri has fallen into the trap of car-centric > thinking. Hardly. In fact, I have almost never used a car for daily commuting. I've made a point of not doing so. I walk and use various MBTA services instead. I typically carry 15-20lbs worth of kit, most of which is electronics of various sorts including: notebook computer, smartphone with the "smart" disabled, Kindle DX, mouse for the notebook compy, iPod, 3DS, and a little case for fiddly bits like USB flash drives and cords. The specifics have changed over the years but the general functions have remained relatively constant. > I have gone places that I wouldn't have gone without the smartphone > because they would have been too much of a pain to find. I have made > spur of the moment trips that I wouldn't have made before (especially > when starting from somewhere other than home) because it would have > been too difficult to figure out how to get there from here in a > timely manner without the smartphone. I think that qualifies as life > changing. I don't. If you are capable of doing something but choose not to do it because you think it would be too difficult then that's your choice. A tool that simplifies the task below some arbitrary threshold of difficulty is not life-changing. It's choice-changing, it might be behavior-changing, but it isn't itself life-changing. It may lead you to life-changing events or circumstances but that's something else. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On March 1, 2013, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote: >You can read a book on a smart phone. I'm glad it works for you, but reading a book on a screen is not to my taste. I've tried it on Kindle and iPad and they both give me a headache. YMMV. >... any job with responsibilities has the occasional need to intrude on >personal life. Definitely true, we all pull all-nighters when needed. It comes with the territory. There's a big difference between "partitioning one's work and personal life" and "shirking responsibility." On March 1, 2013, Kent Borg wrote: >I don't let [my smartphone] have to power to stress me, I assert my power >over it, it serves me. >The idea that I would want to not have it because I don't want it to >drive me is like not wanting electricity because I don't want to labor >after dark. I don't avoid smartphones for fear they'd have power over me; but as mentioned, I haven't encountered a reason to own one (other than GPS, which by definition needs to be portable). I am surrounded by a slew of powerful computers that serve me just fine. I just have no reason to carry one with me... neither smartphone nor laptop nor tablet. (Exception: when at a hotel, it's convenient to have a laptop with internet connection.) >...once you turn off the beeps it sits quietly until you decide to pick it >up. Even though you're right, smartphones do change people's behavior. A large portion of the smartphone population will "decide to pick up" that muted phone a zillion times an hour, the instant they have a thought about something: "Hey, I'll check it right now on my phone." Perhaps you view this as power and convenience. I see it as interrupting the flow of whatever we were doing together at the time: a conversation, a meeting, etc. When you have a Magical Book Of Everything at your fingertips all day, you use it constantly. >it sounds more like you are enjoying being a fuddy-duddy and >wearing the mantle of Wise Old Timer. Now now, I was very careful not to call anybody any names in my note. :-) Smartphones are wonderful for the fine people who need them. I am deep into technology 15+ hours a day. I just don't get the value of carrying it with me, muted or otherwise. (It was the same for portable music players when they were invented: tried 'em and didn't like 'em.) To each his/her own. -- Dan Barrett dbarr...@blazemonger.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bill Horne wrote: > My wife, who is a nurse, has a friend who works in the Public Health Service > in Pennsylvania. They spent an unforgettable evening together in Lancaster, > talking over old classmates and old memories, while we sat on the porch of a > guest house, opposite a field where fireflies were as thick as the stars > overhead, and where the only other sounds to be heard were made by > horse-drawn wagons and carriages. As you know, it's impossible to remember things or talk to people face to face if you use any sort of technology whatsoever, or if anyone around you is doing so. YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN, Gordon ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 3/1/2013 12:44 PM, Kent Borg wrote: On 03/01/2013 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: But again, the nature of the activity hasn't changed, just the tools used to perform them. You make sense, but at the expense of being sensible. No disrespect, but I disagree. By your logic electric power and telegraph and trains and cars and radio and TV and lasers and maybe even space travel didn't change the nature of activity either, just the tools. In the sense that the "activity" is spending a major portion of each workday earning the money that goes to support multi-national corporations, you're right. In the sense that the "activity" is acquiring enough food to stay alive, shelter, and a chance to contribute to society, we differ. My wife, who is a nurse, has a friend who works in the Public Health Service in Pennsylvania. They spent an unforgettable evening together in Lancaster, talking over old classmates and old memories, while we sat on the porch of a guest house, opposite a field where fireflies were as thick as the stars overhead, and where the only other sounds to be heard were made by horse-drawn wagons and carriages. Be careful, so the saying goes, of what you ask for: we may have asked for more convenience in our lives, and more time for our families, and more options when choosing what route to take from out safe suburban enclave into the dangerous, dirty, crowded, threatening city. What we *got* was an electronic leash that makes us available to our rulers twenty-four by seven, that requires us to substitute knee-jerk reactions for heads-up thinking, and which condemns us to appear as if we are subalterns who need to be told what to do during every second of our lives. I think the Amish have a better take on things: the limiting factor, after all, is human evolution. Bill -- Bill Horne 339-364-8487 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
> New ways of doing things don't work well unless, and until, a major fraction > of the affected population adopts them. Cellphones and other mobile > computing devices aren't in that zone yet: they are a /tool/, but not the > only one. > > Bill Horne Your choice to stick with older methods is fine if it works for you. But I have to disagree with this statement; I feel that mobile computing devices ARE in that zone now, especially for younger parts of the population. A teenager without a text-capable cellphone, for example, would be cut off from the major communication channel of his or her peers. Mobile access to maps, schedules, and real-time data on train and bus arrivals has changed my relationship with public transit sufficiently that I would say that anybody who lacks that access is getting a second class experience. Saving 15 minutes of standing out in the cold and rain to wait for a bus is life changing; with real time data I don't have to go out to the bus stop until the bus is about to arrive. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
I think that Rich Pieri has fallen into the trap of car-centric thinking. If I were traveling by car I could carry an atlas, a GPS, and a schedule, and get around without the smartphone. But I don't do that; I have to carry everything with me because I move on foot, on a bicycle, or on the T. Carrying all that stuff all the time isn't practical. Taking the smartphone everywhere is. I have gone places that I wouldn't have gone without the smartphone because they would have been too much of a pain to find. I have made spur of the moment trips that I wouldn't have made before (especially when starting from somewhere other than home) because it would have been too difficult to figure out how to get there from here in a timely manner without the smartphone. I think that qualifies as life changing. Calling the organizer for those last minute changes doesn't always work. For one thing, the organizer may already be enroute to the site, or on-site inside a building with no cell service, and therefore not callable. Getting directions on the phone is horribly inefficient and error prone in any case; a device that can display text and maps works much better. I've also been known to read on my smartphone. But I usually reach for the Nexus 7 tablet instead because the screen is bigger. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 3/1/2013 12:22 PM, Gordon Marx wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: You could use a road atlas to do the same thing. Changed tool, not changed activity. Or a sextant! Streets and landmarks don't change often enough to justify use of an "open ocean" instrument and procedures, especially when buildings are likely to block the sight lines to the navigational stars and the horizon. In any case the sextant isn't able to give enough accuracy for navigation in cities: according to Wikipedia "Most ocean navigators, shooting from a moving platform, can achieve a practical accuracy of 1.5 miles (2.8 km), enough to navigate safely when out of sight of land."(1) or to get transit schedules to reach an unfamiliar location. Same thing. It's certainly easier to get current schedules that way than trekking to the local station and hope they have printed schedules. But again, the nature of the activity hasn't changed, just the tools used to perform them. Okay, I guess you need a sextant and a subway/bus map. But that's OK, I carry around a bunch of crap anyway. Subway and bus maps don't usually include schedules: those are usually published separately, since they change more frequently than the routes. You could contact the meeting organizer instead, or vice-versa. Yes, they could send me smoke signals! Except if I'm in the T, so they'd need to know that. I guess they have a watch, and the same map I have, and can guess which T I'm on? I also hope they're not changing the meeting location, because then I might not know where in the sky to look for the smoke signals. Smoke signals aren't practical in cities: they're only usable over relatively flat terrain, at distances great enough to allow relaying the message more quickly than an approaching enemy can travel, or when language differences and custom dictates an unambiguous message that can't be misinterpreted, such as those sent by the College of Cardinals while electing a Pope. (2) You could have arranged to meet at a designated place and time instead. Luckily I never run late. But if I do, I always make sure to carry around a signal drum, so even if my friend can't see me, they can hear my apologetic drumming of lateness. That's not likely to work: sounds don't carry well in cities, especially with competing sounds from cars, trolleys, etc. Moreover, you'd have to arrange a mutually acceptable code of drumbeats that would convey your message accurately, and that's surprisingly hard to do: there are, for example, several versions of the Morse code, so they, and ancillary compression algorithms such as The Phillips Code, have to be agreed-on and practiced in advance. Swapping a tool for a more appropriate one isn't life- changing. Yup, watches are better than sundials, but they've never saved anyone's life. http://humantimeproject.com/buy-one-give-another/ I take it that you're referring to sundials when you say "they've never saved anyone's life". The URL you wrote is for a site which proposes to send watches to health-care workers as part of a sales promotion. Your arguments all seem to lead to the same point, which is an assumption that "everyone" should do things with a portable computing device, even though there are lower-cost, commonly-available, and reliable methods of doing the things, all of which are well-known, ubiquitous, and don't need batteries. I'll go further: * Using a GPS to get to a meeting, instead of a map, doesn't change the substance of what is said during the meeting. * Public transit must, by definition, be available to the common man. That means published schedules printed on paper, where the only assumption needed is that the user can read, or has access to someone who can. Either way, it's a reliable paradigm, with centuries of proven performance. * If I arrive late at a gathering point, and there's nobody waiting, then I know that I have two options: o I can assume that those attending the gathering didn't think my contribution would be important enough that they wanted to wait for me, and so I can go do other things. o I can go to nearby meeting places which the group has used before, and see if they are there again. * Paying more for a watch in order to achieve [some-outcome-I-think-is-good] doesn't alter my life. It just indicates that I want to hire other to accomplish [some-outcome-I-think-is-good]. If I understood Mr. Pieri's post correctly, he feels that having a new tool to accomplish a given task doesn't change one's life in a fundamental way. I agree, and I reserve the right to employ methods that don't require me to pay thousands of dollars a year to obtain the same information I can get from a map, or a bus schedule, or any clock on any wall I pass, or from any one of the secretaries whom work with any one of the expected participants in a meeting. New ways of doing things don
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:44:25 -0500 Kent Borg wrote: > You make sense, but at the expense of being sensible. I counter by asserting that your sense of sensibility is what is insensible. You've mixed up new tools like electric power with improved tools like the horseless carriage. If you look at a thing as a better version of a thing you were using before then it isn't life-changing. Not really. It's a change, certainly, but it isn't the kind of significant change that typifies life-changing events or experiences. Trading your horse and buggy for an automobile: not life-changing. Working all hours of the night because some greedy inventor figured out how to make a light bulb operate 24 hours a day: life-changing. Trading your wood pulp editions of The Boston Globe for an RSS feed of the Boston Globe: not life-changing. Using FaceTime on your iThing as your primary contact with your infant children: life-changing. And I'll be laughing hysterically when said infant starts identifying the glossy rectangle as "mommy" or "daddy". -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 12:52 PM, Daniel Barrett wrote: You're not the last. I still don't own one and perhaps never will. My days are already jam-packed with technology; the last thing I desire is to carry more technology around with me. I keep my phone on silent almost always, I pull it out when I want it and seldom when it wants me. I don't do work e-mail on it, I very seldom don't do e-mail from this account on it (too old an address, too much spam). I don't let it have to power to stress me, I assert my power over it, it serves me. The idea that I would want to not have it because I don't want it to drive me is like not wanting electricity because I don't want to labor after dark. Both arguments make some sense, but seem remote. I am sure there were those back when who resisted hooking up to electricity because they didn't want it to ruin their lives, but they seem silly, too. I like reading on my small tablet, which I have with me almost as much as my phone, but not quite. And the other day I was standing in the basement waiting for the washer to fill and mix with the soap a bit more before I put the clothes in, so I read another page, in the same book, starting at the same location, but on my phone. I didn't have to anticipate that I wanted to do this, I didn't have to remember what page I was on, the Kindle app was already on my phone and it already knew where I was. Yes, the screen is little, but it is sharper than many printed books. Yes, the screen doesn't work in bright light, but I wasn't in bright light--and I could get an e-paper Kindle if I were going to the beach. I can understand wanting to live slowly. But why is that incompatible with a smartphone? Learn how to turn off the beeps. A phone isn't an autonomous and sentient Taser that will sneak up on you and attack when you aren't looking. No, once you turn off the beeps it sits quietly until you decide to pick it up. Why is that stressful? It sounds like you know there is forbidden stress in the phone and can't stop yourself from reaching for it and taking a drink. Yes, in that case I can see you are better off without one, but it sounds more like you are enjoying being a fuddy-duddy and wearing the mantle of Wise Old Timer. -kb, the Kent who was savoring the language of _Richard_III_ the other day, off some instance of his "more technology", with his feet up, wine in hand, and not feeling stressed at all. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
> Mark Woodward wrote: >>I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart >>phone. > > You're not the last. I still don't own one and perhaps never will. My > days > are already jam-packed with technology; the last thing I desire is to > carry > more technology around with me. > > #define LIFESTYLE_GENTLE_RANT 1 > > Other than GPS (which I have in my car), I have yet to encounter a single > smartphone app that would make my life *happier*. This is not a troll so > please don't respond with your dozen favorite apps. :-) My priorities are > just different. Well, my reason for getting was a family vacation. I needed to be able to answer email. We are on a tight release schedule, but there is more... As I own it, I realize that it is actually less of a phone and more of a consolidation of various utilities. GPS for car, don't need it. Bike computer for bicycle, don't need it Laptop or tablet for quick email, don't need it Small notebook for shopping lists and contacts, don't need it. It isn't "life changing" in as much as that term means, but it does allow me to travel lighter. > > If I'm standing in a long, boring line waiting for something, I don't want > to whip out a phone and surf the web or play a game. I'd rather think > interesting thoughts, compose music in my head, read a book, or harangue > the person responsible for the long delay. (I'd chat with the person next > to me, but he's playing with his smartphone.) You can read a book on a smart phone. > > Work is insanely busy. So when I'm not at work, I like living slowly, > cultivating patience. Enjoying a meal without the beep of a text > message. I understand that others need to stay in contact with work > 24x7. I've chosen not to live that way, and to accept whatever compromises > come with that choice. (Even so, I'm having a successful career in the > tech > industry. It's a balancing act.) True most of the time, but any job with responsibilities has the occasional need to intrude on personal life. > > The only tough part is not having mobile access to my calendar. This means > every so often, I make an appointment for a time that's already booked, so > I have to phone later to change it. It's a small price to pay to stay > unhooked. > > -- > Dan Barrett > dbarr...@blazemonger.com > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Mark Woodward wrote: >I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart >phone. You're not the last. I still don't own one and perhaps never will. My days are already jam-packed with technology; the last thing I desire is to carry more technology around with me. #define LIFESTYLE_GENTLE_RANT 1 Other than GPS (which I have in my car), I have yet to encounter a single smartphone app that would make my life *happier*. This is not a troll so please don't respond with your dozen favorite apps. :-) My priorities are just different. If I'm standing in a long, boring line waiting for something, I don't want to whip out a phone and surf the web or play a game. I'd rather think interesting thoughts, compose music in my head, read a book, or harangue the person responsible for the long delay. (I'd chat with the person next to me, but he's playing with his smartphone.) Work is insanely busy. So when I'm not at work, I like living slowly, cultivating patience. Enjoying a meal without the beep of a text message. I understand that others need to stay in contact with work 24x7. I've chosen not to live that way, and to accept whatever compromises come with that choice. (Even so, I'm having a successful career in the tech industry. It's a balancing act.) The only tough part is not having mobile access to my calendar. This means every so often, I make an appointment for a time that's already booked, so I have to phone later to change it. It's a small price to pay to stay unhooked. -- Dan Barrett dbarr...@blazemonger.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: But again, the nature of the activity hasn't changed, just the tools used to perform them. You make sense, but at the expense of being sensible. By your logic electric power and telegraph and trains and cars and radio and TV and lasers and maybe even space travel didn't change the nature of activity either, just the tools. A logical distinction that is self-consistent, but not maybe terribly useful in this context: we might have to go back to the industrial revolution or maybe even the invention of agriculture or the invention of democracy before you will agree the "nature of the activity" changed. Your perspective brings up interesting questions, but pretty remote from phones of any sort. -kb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: > You could use a road atlas to do the same thing. Changed tool, not > changed activity. Or a sextant! >>> or to get transit schedules to reach an unfamiliar location. > > Same thing. It's certainly easier to get current schedules that way > than trekking to the local station and hope they have printed > schedules. But again, the nature of the activity hasn't changed, just > the tools used to perform them. Okay, I guess you need a sextant and a subway/bus map. But that's OK, I carry around a bunch of crap anyway. > You could contact the meeting organizer instead, or vice-versa. Yes, they could send me smoke signals! Except if I'm in the T, so they'd need to know that. I guess they have a watch, and the same map I have, and can guess which T I'm on? I also hope they're not changing the meeting location, because then I might not know where in the sky to look for the smoke signals. > You could have arranged to meet at a designated place and time instead. Luckily I never run late. But if I do, I always make sure to carry around a signal drum, so even if my friend can't see me, they can hear my apologetic drumming of lateness. > Swapping a tool for a more appropriate one isn't life- > changing. Yup, watches are better than sundials, but they've never saved anyone's life. http://humantimeproject.com/buy-one-give-another/ Gordon ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:21:28 -0500 Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote: > Some of the uses of smartphones are life-changing in a more social > way. When I use my mobile map to make sure I reach a social > engagement, You could use a road atlas to do the same thing. Changed tool, not changed activity. > or to get transit schedules to reach an unfamiliar location. Same thing. It's certainly easier to get current schedules that way than trekking to the local station and hope they have printed schedules. But again, the nature of the activity hasn't changed, just the tools used to perform them. > When I check my email on the smartphone to catch last-minute > changes to a meeting location. You could contact the meeting organizer instead, or vice-versa. > When I text a friend to make it possible for us to actually find > each other in a crowded place. You could have arranged to meet at a designated place and time instead. > These are using technology to facilitate social engagement, not to > replace it. Facilitate, yes. It is certainly easier to call someone than it is to wait and hope they arrive on time. But again, you're not changing the nature of the activity; you're changing the tools used to perform that activity. Swapping a tool for a more appropriate one isn't life- changing. Adopting a tool to replace that activity or change its nature is life- changing. Ever notice how a person speaking over the telephone doesn't sound the same as he does face-to-face? Something about the lack of harmonics in reproduced human speech make the remote speaker seem... a bit inhuman. This is the kind of thing that I'm on about. Not the convenience of making activities easier.. The "convenience" of replacing basic human contact with gee-whiz technogadgetry. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 3/1/2013 10:42 AM, Jerry Feldman wrote: In the old days they had a single landline in a house shared by all members of the family, and parents could snoop. Today, with text messaging the device is portable so while their parents can check on the bills and usage, they can't see anything about the individual text messages. In the old days, parents and other family members could only snoop in real-time if they happened to be present while the call was happening. But texting is a store-and-forward mechanism that leaves a record that anybody who can get physical access to your phone can see. Now that texting is ubiquitous and the features to secure your private messages are enough of a hassle that virtually nobody uses them, it's not just parents who snoop. Judging by the newspaper stories about Rhianna (2008) or Tiger Woods (2009), the old social rules that violating a family member or friend's privacy by snooping have gone out the window, and it's now perfectly acceptable to read someone else's communications without their permission -- at least it is if you're a girlfriend or wife. In Chris Brown's case, his response was an extreme overreaction. But it was triggered by having his privacy violated by his girlfriend. In Tiger Woods' case, not only did he have his privacy violated, but according to reports at the time he was then physically attacked by her as he tried to get away, and then in order to salvage his public image he was forced to engage in spin control and deny the attack ever happened. But whether it happened or not, his privacy was violated. Snooping hasn't disappeared. If anything, it's worse than ever! Mark Rosenthal ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
Some of the uses of smartphones are life-changing in a more social way. When I use my mobile map to make sure I reach a social engagement, or to get transit schedules to reach an unfamiliar location. When I check my email on the smartphone to catch last-minute changes to a meeting location. When I text a friend to make it possible for us to actually find each other in a crowded place. These are using technology to facilitate social engagement, not to replace it. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:35:05 -0500 Kent Borg wrote: > Don't underestimate some of the change we might take for granted. A Changing how you read the news from wood pulp to glowy bits isn't life-changing. You're not changing your activities. You're still reading the news. You're still looking up show times. What's changed is the tools you use to perform these activities. That's not life-changing. What is life-changing is watching that movie on the little piece of hand-held glass instead of watching that movie on a big screen or a TV in the common room with your family or friends. The shiny thing turns a fundamentally social activity into a fundamentally reclusive activity. Those shiny things are doing this to every aspect of human interaction. This is indeed life-changing. Not for the better, in my opinion. We're turning into a nation of excruciatingly interconnected recluses, all for a few hits of dopamine. Instant gratification at its finest. I'm waiting for the crash. See, the brain builds up resistance to DA. The more DA you get, the more you need to get the same pleasure sensation. A general crash is a foregone conclusion. The only real question is whether Apple or Facebook starts crumbling first. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 08:31 AM, Mark Woodward wrote: I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart phone. Android, of course. I think the people who claim that they are "life changing" are using more than a bit of hyperbole. As I think about it, it really isn't a "phone" so much as a wireless personal computer that happens to have a telephone application. Still, its pretty useful. Thinking about it, it is a proper evolution from the phone. The phone has become obsolete. Teenage girls don't spend hours on the phone anymore. They spend hours texting. As more and more of our communications becomes "written," the more these types of devices become the norm. I can text and email coworkers easier than I can speak with them. With all the various accents and nationalities, verbal communications can be quite difficult. I can think as I write much easier than when I speak. So, yes. As you walk through crowds of people, every single one of them looking at their "phone," we have certainly rounded a corner in human communications. It has changed society significantly. With a Smartphone, you are virtually never out of communications range. (Unless you are in an area not covered like a National Park). Nearly every facet of society has been affected including warfare. Osama bin Laden was tracked down by his courier's cell phone. In your example, above, it also gives these kids some independence. In the old days they had a single landline in a house shared by all members of the family, and parents could snoop. Today, with text messaging the device is portable so while their parents can check on the bills and usage, they can't see anything about the individual text messages. But also the smartphone can be used to enforce 24x7 coverage by one person in an IT situation. The impact of smartphones is world-wide. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id:3BC1EB90 PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66 C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 10:10 AM, Rich Pieri wrote: It's a dopamine gadget. It's not life-changing. Except really good dopamine gadgets (and dopamine drugs) ARE life-changing. Don't underestimate some of the change we might take for granted. A ton of practical stuff has changed in the last couple decades. Remember buying a newspaper to see what movies were playing where and when? Now you might look up the time on your tablet--or just watch the movie on your tablet. Very life changing for newspapers and movie houses. Certainly smartphones didn't do all that, but phones and tablets are crushing notebook sales. They are taking over, they might not change your life over a weekend, but they are way important and part of a lot of ongoing change. It only makes you feel like it's life-changing because of all the little squirts of dopamine your brain gets every time you "discover" something new. Sounds like a key way our brains measure "life changing". What could be more real to me than dopamine in my brain? Seriously. If that doesn't qualify as real, I could care less about things you claim are real. Saying otherwise is like saying that how much money I have isn't important because the only thing that is important is "economics". Fiddlesticks. Money is a very key measure of economics for me, and so is dopamine an extremely important measure of life; take away my dopamine and you will take away my life. -kb ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 08:31:10 -0500 Mark Woodward wrote: > I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart > phone. Android, of course. I think the people who claim that they are > "life changing" are using more than a bit of hyperbole. It's a dopamine gadget. It's not life-changing. It only makes you feel like it's life-changing because of all the little squirts of dopamine your brain gets every time you "discover" something new. -- Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
On 03/01/2013 08:31 AM, Mark Woodward wrote: I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart phone. Android, of course. I think the people who claim that they are "life changing" are using more than a bit of hyperbole. But then you go on to describe how life changing it is... Everyone is looking at their phones all the time, teenage girls don't talk for hours at a time, etc. I am amazed at what an impressive *phone* my Galaxy Nexus is. Go back a couple decades and think about it as a "telephone": wow! Okay, but the telephone part is what I use least. Pretty amazing. -kb, the Kent who recommends only Nexus Androids so as to not get extra manufacturer or carrier cruft. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones
I think I was the last human being above the age of 16 to get a smart phone. Android, of course. I think the people who claim that they are "life changing" are using more than a bit of hyperbole. As I think about it, it really isn't a "phone" so much as a wireless personal computer that happens to have a telephone application. Still, its pretty useful. Thinking about it, it is a proper evolution from the phone. The phone has become obsolete. Teenage girls don't spend hours on the phone anymore. They spend hours texting. As more and more of our communications becomes "written," the more these types of devices become the norm. I can text and email coworkers easier than I can speak with them. With all the various accents and nationalities, verbal communications can be quite difficult. I can think as I write much easier than when I speak. So, yes. As you walk through crowds of people, every single one of them looking at their "phone," we have certainly rounded a corner in human communications. Any opinions? ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
