Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Arlo Barnes]

I assume you mean 'free kittens' as in free up front but thousands of
dollars in food and veterinary checkups per year for ten plus years?
As to how one would go about constructing a meshnet, I *think* all that
would be required is a program constantly running on devices, looking for
signals from other devices, and acting as a translator for those signals; I
suppose as a merger, also (device asks for a resource from connected
devices, devices check for resource on accessible networks, out of the ones
that can get it, one device is selected to perform the transfer).
But I had only heard of the concept recently, and have only heard of one
strong effort to do such a thing (One LapTop Per Child [OLPC], according to
my friend Max Bond) so my knowledge is fairly minimal, I am working off
guesswork so far. I shall have to do more research...
-Arlo James Barnes

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Carl Tollander]

Well, it may come to pass that the only thing I have worth anythng will 
be my phone, so I'll put it in my wallet and lock it with my keys.   For 
that matter, nothing will be ON my phone (hey, cloud), the phone's main 
(only) job is to negotiate protocols.  So I don't need no steenking 
unified network.   Just a loose bag of wires and spectrum.   Let the 
phones (or whatever we will call them) figure out how to get packets 
from here to there.   For some uses, maybe no phone at all; have your 
people talk to my people.   The 'phone' is just a protocol droid (guess 
they can keep the name), a commodity, interchangable, just 'around'.


Do we REALLY believe that 20 years from now we're going to be worried 
about tv and sms on little devices we carry around on our person?   
That's fighting the last war.


Carl

On 1/10/12 9:31 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Here's an interesting solution for a unified network in France.  All 
services (voice, sms, tv, data) plus some new ideas (ID, banking):


 “In your pocket you have three things: your keys, your phone and
your wallet,” he says. “I think of those three only one will
remain: your phone.”

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/09/how-frances-free-will-reinvent-mobile/

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Carl Tollander > wrote:


I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing,  but
again, kittens.

What is the victory condition?  What is the problem we want to
solve?   It seems its not really battery life


On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:

What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable,
relying on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this
actually? This model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call
distributed or partnership effort, each person doing a small part
of the task, and numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like
one of those things that can be pulled off in small like-minded
communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't been
filled yet.  But not so likely in an area where those things
don't exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or
people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications
besides phone service.

Tory


On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:


Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those
who want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do
not want it. But there are enough smart people out there that
communities could build the phones they want. So the issue is
coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the
owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been
pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot
be fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more
than the average computer, even including laptops. This is why
cell towers have been built to cover wide areas, and of course
companies need to be big enough to have enough money to build
them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. Communities might
be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly and some
people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be
mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot
closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do
not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that
people can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Owen Densmore]

Here's an interesting solution for a unified network in France.  All
services (voice, sms, tv, data) plus some new ideas (ID, banking):

 “In your pocket you have three things: your keys, your phone and your
wallet,” he says. “I think of those three only one will remain: your phone.”

http://gigaom.com/2012/01/09/how-frances-free-will-reinvent-mobile/

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Carl Tollander  wrote:

>  I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing,  but again,
> kittens.
>
> What is the victory condition?  What is the problem we want to solve?   It
> seems its not really battery life
>
>
> On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
>
> What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying on
> interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This model -
> what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or partnership effort,
> each person doing a small part of the task, and numbers making the big
> tasks happen - seems like one of those things that can be pulled off in
> small like-minded communities, or those with pre-existing need that hasn't
> been filled yet.  But not so likely in an area where those things don't
> exist. Sounds like something the Norwegians would do, or people in
> Portland, Oregon.
> Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides phone
> service.
>
>  Tory
>
>
>  On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:
>
>  Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want
> it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there
> are enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones
> they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or
> closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has
> been pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be
> fixed. The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average
> computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built
> to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have
> enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'.
> Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly
> and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be
> mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to
> another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite
> a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with
> coverage, bypassing vendors.
> -Arlo
>  
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Carl Tollander]

I'd actually like to see some sort of software radio thing,  but again, 
kittens.


What is the victory condition?  What is the problem we want to solve?   
It seems its not really battery life


On 1/10/12 6:10 PM, Victoria Hughes wrote:
What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying 
on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This 
model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or 
partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and 
numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things 
that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with 
pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet.  But not so likely in 
an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the 
Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides 
phone service.


Tory


On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who 
want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want 
it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities 
could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG should 
be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot wants, 
controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little weak on 
security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is that 
mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even 
including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover 
wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have 
enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'. 
Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are 
unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the 
answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is 
a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals do 
not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people can 
provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.

-Arlo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Victoria Hughes]

What a great solution- the mesh network. Communal, reasonable, relying  
on interpersonal responsibility. How feasible is this actually? This  
model - what without knowing the jargon I'd call distributed or  
partnership effort, each person doing a small part of the task, and  
numbers making the big tasks happen - seems like one of those things  
that can be pulled off in small like-minded communities, or those with  
pre-existing need that hasn't been filled yet.  But not so likely in  
an area where those things don't exist. Sounds like something the  
Norwegians would do, or people in Portland, Oregon.
Say more about how it could be set up? So many applications besides  
phone service.


Tory


On Jan 10, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Arlo Barnes wrote:

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who  
want it, and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want  
it. But there are enough smart people out there that communities  
could build the phones they want. So the issue is coverage. nG  
should be like WiFi - as open or closed as the owner of the hotspot  
wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been pointed out, a little  
weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed. The problem is  
that mobile devices move around more than the average computer, even  
including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built to cover  
wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have  
enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'.  
Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are  
unsightly and some people claim they cause health problems. So the  
answer might be mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device  
is a lot closer to another device than the nearest tower, so signals  
do not have to have quite a strong amplitude. This means that people  
can provide each other with coverage, bypassing vendors.

-Arlo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Arlo Barnes]

Open source hardware and software can spread quickly to those who want it,
and clearly companies that sell mobile phones do not want it. But there are
enough smart people out there that communities could build the phones they
want. So the issue is coverage. nG should be like WiFi - as open or closed
as the owner of the hotspot wants, controllable, et cetera. As has been
pointed out, a little weak on security, but nothing that cannot be fixed.
The problem is that mobile devices move around more than the average
computer, even including laptops. This is why cell towers have been built
to cover wide areas, and of course companies need to be big enough to have
enough money to build them. Big companies tend to not like 'open'.
Communities might be able to raise enough money, but towers are unsightly
and some people claim they cause health problems. So the answer might be
mesh networks - chances are, a given mobile device is a lot closer to
another device than the nearest tower, so signals do not have to have quite
a strong amplitude. This means that people can provide each other with
coverage, bypassing vendors.
-Arlo

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Carl Tollander]

Any smartphone OS for the foreseeable future will be free as in 
kittens.   It would be nice if the battery were to last longer.   I 
don't know what the the battery life is on 'standard' android, never 
seen one.


I use my Droid X2 pretty hard, and a days use is usually about 40% of 
the full charge,  which is way better than other phones I've had, but I 
plug it in at night anyhow.  If it became an issue I'd just buy a second 
battery.


Yes, the monthly fees are too high.  What to do?  The carriers will do 
what they feel they need to do to maintain their margins.  Voting with 
your feet isn't necessarily a solution.


Carl

On 1/10/12 4:21 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

The issues I bumped into were:
- The handset mfgrs and the carriers all wanted to piss all over 
Android, primarily the UI.  The handset folks built UIs that were to 
distinguish them from others, but succeeded only in having their 
version of android have worse battery life.
- So I wanted vanilla android.  That should be easy, right?  Well, 
apparently the carriers didn't want that, so I was forced into their 
upgrade schedule.  Also there were claims that the handset makers 
wanted more control over things like the camera .. the standard 
android wasn't good enough.
- A ray of hope appeared with  CyanogenMod which gave ninja users the 
ability to upgrade their firmware, but looking deeper into them, they 
too had lots of problems keeping up with the latest drivers.


Now I realize I could become a phone sys admin and hacker ninja, but I 
got tired of that keeping my initial iPhone running on TMo via unlock 
hacks.  Annoying and time consuming.


So it appeared weird to me.  Why would the open phone platform, which 
showed so much initial promise, seem to be backing away from being 
free (both beer and speech).


So the control you don't have is the initial promise of
- Carrier independence .. they still own you and have absurd contracts.
- OS independence .. the handset folks have "improve" android and its 
hard to go back to vanilla and the firmware you'd prefer.


Maybe I was just expecting too much: a great hacker phone os that 
would work on lots of phones and release me fron contracts, absurd 
plans, limits on networking (tethering, limits, huge over-run costs). 
 In short, I though the evil trinity would be broken and google would 
be a hero.


No.

I guess my next best hope is that the Moto buy, plus maybe something 
like buying Tmo, could let Google control the initial android dream. 
 I feel a bit like the Obama "Yes You Can" ripoff.


   -- Owen

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM, glen > wrote:


Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:
> We have had several phone chats.  I kept finding Android a bit
difficult
> to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers,
Cellular
> Carriers, and Mobile OSs.  I found the evil trios not providing
what I
> wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
>
> This post discusses part of the problem.  No, its not an iPhone vs
> Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of
control.
> http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut.  But my very
density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)

Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have?  I seem to
have
control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
including which carrier I use.

--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org





FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Owen Densmore]

The issues I bumped into were:
- The handset mfgrs and the carriers all wanted to piss all over Android,
primarily the UI.  The handset folks built UIs that were to distinguish
them from others, but succeeded only in having their version of android
have worse battery life.
- So I wanted vanilla android.  That should be easy, right?  Well,
apparently the carriers didn't want that, so I was forced into their
upgrade schedule.  Also there were claims that the handset makers wanted
more control over things like the camera .. the standard android wasn't
good enough.
- A ray of hope appeared with CyanogenMod which gave ninja users the
ability to upgrade their firmware, but looking deeper into them, they too
had lots of problems keeping up with the latest drivers.

Now I realize I could become a phone sys admin and hacker ninja, but I got
tired of that keeping my initial iPhone running on TMo via unlock hacks.
 Annoying and time consuming.

So it appeared weird to me.  Why would the open phone platform, which
showed so much initial promise, seem to be backing away from being free
(both beer and speech).

So the control you don't have is the initial promise of
- Carrier independence .. they still own you and have absurd contracts.
- OS independence .. the handset folks have "improve" android and its hard
to go back to vanilla and the firmware you'd prefer.

Maybe I was just expecting too much: a great hacker phone os that would
work on lots of phones and release me fron contracts, absurd plans, limits
on networking (tethering, limits, huge over-run costs).  In short, I though
the evil trinity would be broken and google would be a hero.

No.

I guess my next best hope is that the Moto buy, plus maybe something like
buying Tmo, could let Google control the initial android dream.  I feel a
bit like the Obama "Yes You Can" ripoff.

   -- Owen

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM, glen  wrote:

> Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:
> > We have had several phone chats.  I kept finding Android a bit difficult
> > to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
> > Carriers, and Mobile OSs.  I found the evil trios not providing what I
> > wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
> >
> > This post discusses part of the problem.  No, its not an iPhone vs
> > Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
> > http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android
>
> I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut.  But my very
> density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)
>
> Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have?  I seem to have
> control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
> including which carrier I use.
>
> --
> glen
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[glen]

Owen Densmore wrote circa 12-01-10 10:48 AM:
> We have had several phone chats.  I kept finding Android a bit difficult
> to deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
> Carriers, and Mobile OSs.  I found the evil trios not providing what I
> wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.
> 
> This post discusses part of the problem.  No, its not an iPhone vs
> Android rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
> http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

I suppose I'm just dense and should keep my mouth shut.  But my very
density prevents me from keeping my mouth shut. ;-)

Precisely what control does an android user _not_ have?  I seem to have
control over every aspect of my android device (Droid 2 Global),
including which carrier I use.

-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[FRIAM] parislemon • Why I Hate Android

[Owen Densmore]

We have had several phone chats.  I kept finding Android a bit difficult to
deal with, mainly because of the new trinity: Phone Makers, Cellular
Carriers, and Mobile OSs.  I found the evil trios not providing what I
wanted and kept thinking I was being painted into a corner.

This post discusses part of the problem.  No, its not an iPhone vs Android
rant, but interesting history on Android and its loss of control.
http://parislemon.com/post/15604811641/why-i-hate-android

   -- Owen

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org