Neat setup, $3 Cell plan

Look what happens when we get too many chiefs and not even one that knows the scriptures.

Not many have words allowing a follower of God to go around killing folks from other religions or to make any such judgements at all.

I have no time, but would love it if I did have time.

Cheers

what kind of features do you need?

you can get gsm/gps tracking off the shelf very cheap

-Lasse

Yea but, Jorge usually needs a reliable vendor.

Cheers

ch as

. If

a

ammer.

I know, it is just an example there are lots of them

-Lasse

I would pay the fine. Antisocial behavior is entertaining and fun. Were it not for the off topic postings (my version of antisocial behavior) in this group, I would fall asleep at the keyboard. A small occasional fine is a small price to pay for all the off topic entertainment received.

Arrange a lottery. The winner gets to make all the decisions for about a month. The proceeds go to the winners psychiatric care, should he not survive his month[1].

Actually, the problem is positive feedback (Santa Claus) versus negative feedback (omniscient and omnipresent divine oversight). I can easily demonstrate with circuitry and modeling that most positive feedback is unstable, oscillatory, and potentially destructive. Likewise, negative feedback usually improves stability, and is generally more useful in both circuitry and behavior modification. Therefore, to maintain decorum in this newsgroup, and eliminate antisocial writers such as myself, the judicious application of negative feedback by a somewhat less than divine authority figure might be the most effective solution.

[1] In the early daze of Usenet, I played moderator in a few local newsgroups and mailing lists. I soon learned that it was a thankless task that rapidly consumed my inadequate supply of patience, tact, and diplomacy. Psychiatric care would have been welcome, but was averted by distributing the load among other volunteer moderators.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Yup. There is also the ever-present BofH syndrome.

With USENET, you can always opt NOT to pull down any messages that might annoy you (i.e., exercise *self* discipline -- instead of kvetching about things you don't like). So, it's somewhat disingenuous of folks to complain about posts that THEY bothered to read! ("Boy, these cookies taste terrible!" "Then, stop eating them!") With *mail*, it's usually a bit harder as your mail server still takes the "hit" of having to receive the message before you can decide whether or not to view it.

I've written two mailing list programs that allow for list participants to moderate (i.e., no single moderator role -- anyone can kvetch about a post and take action on it!). So far, this has seemed to work pretty well as a deterrent (remember, it's easy to be tempted to start forwarding big JPEG's, "jokes", video clips, etc. IN EMAIL; so, abusing the email accounts of subscribers has a more significant downside).

Trick is coming up with disincentives for posting "off topic" AND for kvetching about posts (i.e., penalize BOTH behaviors).

"Technically", SED is supposed to be for the discussion of electronic circuits. The problem withoff-topic posts is they tend to turn a newsgroup into a "bar room" -- for folks who don't have the inclination to go to their local tavern and argue with the drunk in the next seat.

Yup. And, you have some "history" with the respondents to know whose opinions (on the OT subject) you might want to give extra credence. Dropping into the "right" newsgroup for a one-off question leaves you at the mercy of not knowing *who* to listen to.

Exactly. I always chuckle at folks who complain of long posts: "Gee, didn't you notice the LINE COUNT posted right alongside the post's subject? Why did you bother to open the post if you were able to understand that '200' (lines) is a lot larger number than '10'?"

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

What I see is the "if you don't want to take my answer as Gospel, then I'm going to take my bat and ball and stomp off...". As if the respondent didn't consider that the OP hadn't *thought* of the question before asking -- and ruled that answer out!

Also, the "what-are-you-trying-to-do" approach to NOT answering the question asked. Which then invites a discussion of why the suggested alternative is inappropriate. Which then drags the exchange on in UNPRODUCTIVE directions, etc.

E.g., I recently was looking to understand why I couldn't telnet in to a machine *as* root (yes, I know why "one shouldn't"; what I wanted to know is where the policy was *enforced* so I could change it). It was amusing to see how many discussions google directed me to that AVOIDED answering the question and, instead, went off explaining why root access is A Bad Thing and suggesting alternatives.

"Listen to me! I'm an authority! Do this! (but i don't really

*know* the answer to the question you asked)"

C'mon... we haven't had a spelling tirade in *ageois*!

Yeah, well... :)

Or, not knowing how to quote attributions properly. Bottom line: just ignore those replies as they obviously weren't intended for you (even though the writer didn't realize that)

I took a technical approach to the problem: wrote a "spam filter" for News that I could train to my constraints. So, let it flag all the posts with profanity (how could those possibly be considered "discussions"?) and simply *hide* them from me. Learn (from the posts that I *tell* it to ignore) which folks I'm not interested in reading. Learn (from those that I reply to) which posts I'm interested in seeing. etc.

It's worked pretty good -- I see far fewer posts than I would, otherwise. Unfortunately, some of the logic that I used in the implementation was faulty: posts that I don't view get treated as posts that I don't want to see (!). So, over time, those posts just get elided -- which *keeps* them elided (because I can't *see* them in order to express an interest in them! :< )

Ooops!

[I had done this as an experiment to sort out how to automatically filter incoming phone calls: if I answer the call, then I am implicitly indicating that I want to receive calls from this person; likewise, if I *don't*, then don't bother me with those calls! Sounds like a logical approach, right? Except once someone gets "blacklisted", there's no way to re-express an interest in them because the mechanism by which you do that -- answering their phone call, reading their News post, etc. -- is no longer available for them! (sigh) ]

I like to say, "If we both agree, then one of us is unnecessary!" Engineering is the art of finding the LEAST BAD solution to the problem in front of you.

No. Just a cell phone or another device that speaks SMS, etc.

Can 300 people send text messages to you "simultaneously"?

The "central device" is the telephone network. Think of it as each device having a small display and a "slave human" standing nearby watching it. Whatever appears on the display the human is charged with typing into his cell phone and pressing "SEND".

I.e., you could relatively easily hack a smart phone to do this. Even a "dumb" phone (if you want to butcher it).

The appeal to this "plan" is the cost of the "cell phone service" that is associated with *each* of these little remote devices. You wouldn't want to pay $40/month for an iPhone sitting in the middle of the woods texting local temperature to *you* every hour or so.

snip

I would have said, from my view, it's more like, "if you don't like my answer, I'm going to to take my bat and pummel you for being stupid."

That is a grey area. I've managed teams of engineers. A common problem is tunnel vision. I've seen very smart engineers waste a lot of effort to complete an ill-conceived task they started. Sometimes, it's a matter of asking what they're trying to accomplish and asking them to back up a couple of levels to examine alternatives. Sometimes the best alternative is to renegotiate the system partitioning. Chastising them for not knowing the alternatives is not helpful. Asking the right questions can lead them to discover a better way on their own.

Many/most of the questions asked in the newsgroups are from people who have no idea the depth of the issue. When the guru offers an answer that the questioner can't understand, little is achieved.

There are plenty of gurus who can answer the question. The big problem is asking the right question. The hardest part of any project is determining/specifying the objective. You can't get there if you don't know where you're going. Helping someone to define their starting point and destination precisely is the best thing you can do to help them get there.

Many people in the anonymous newsgroups are far more interested in displaying how stupid you are compared to them. Solution to your problem is not one of their objectives.

Another problem with communication is the venue. What should be a 5 minute conversation between tutor and student becomes a week of a dozen "contributors" shouting conflicting opinions in jargon incomprehensible to the student in "talk-only" mode. Logic is rarely "required".

Sounds like a good approach. I like to expand that to solving the real-world problem in the context of the real-world.

Since we both seem to be in story-telling mode... I was once part of a modular instrument engineering business. There was considerable corporate infighting and management flux. New management decided they would shut down engineering and do market studies.

I got a copy of the tentative questionnaire and crashed the marketing meeting. I asked, "exactly how are you gonna use the answers to these questions to determine business direction? Show me how any of them map to future products." After heated discussion, I was ejected from the meeting. Long story short...the place was shut down for six months. Data analysis produced about a hundred market segments. Care to guess how many customers were visited?

Another example... The corporation demanded I force a product line into a specific market. We couldn't supply what that market wanted, although we were promising that elusive technology. I stood up in the GM staff meeting and drew a bar chart on the whiteboard. I asked how much money we were investing in solving the technology problem. Plotted that bar on the chart. Then, I asked how much money was being invested in competing technology that was currently deemed inferior, assuming you ignored the fact that we couldn't actually compete in that business. To plot that on the whiteboard, I'd have needed a much bigger whiteboard... like several stories high. Nobody wanted to think about that. It was all about me being insubordinate. I was eventually fired...er...downsized. My replacement did what they wanted. I sold my stock at ~$20/share. Stock was worth ~$2/share last I looked.

It's all about the big picture. It really is all about what you're trying to accomplish.

For many to one, I'd agree. For simple one-off monitoring systems, you still need two ends.

Yes, they can, because I don't have to be there when they do. And I don't have to respond now or ever or even acknowledge receipt.

Sounds like these devices are one-way and just dial a phone number and send a text to report status. I'm assuming that they don't have an actual phone number...aren't enough to go around.

Shouldn't have anything at all to do with the hardware. You could pay $3 for the remote iPhone and cost the carrier the same for data. The only reason You pay $40 a month for the iPhone because they know you will. $3 a month for every smart refrigerator and remote device on the planet could bring them more revenue per byte than the iPhone. What would cell service cost if the carriers weren't constantly sponsoring sporting events and trading customers back and forth with new phones and rebates and...?

Sure! But, *IME* (here and in other USENET groups), this turns into a lengthy discussion of design criteria (which folks then COMPLAIN about) followed by, "Gee, I guess this *is* the only way to approach the problem!" (which is never *voiced*). So, instead of saying "Gee, I can't answer your question" (by NOT responding), the result is exactly the same but requires more effort on the part of each party involved.

I take the approach of assuming that the OP knows what they are talking about -- though, possibly, may not be expressing themselves clearly. So, if *I* want to respond, *I* invest time in sorting out the *real* question they are asking instead of forcing them to justify all of their previous (unwritten) thinking.

E.g., a recent post in C.A.E. concerned the design of a device to automatically reprogram another device when it "crashes" (in the field). This is akin to setting up a PC to automatically reinstall Windows when *your* (Windows) PC crashes.

Or, a device to automatically replace a fuse that blows. (tongue in cheek)

Clearly, there is some other issue involved, there. So, while such a device is technically possible, it SCREAMS of "band-aid". The real question should have been "Why is my device crashing?"

Agreed. But, likewise, when the discussion turns into minutiae that the OP has already addressed *before* deciding on the "right" question to post, lots of bytes get exchanged with little "progress" towards a solution.

I suspect many participants have little/no "social life". Or, technical contacts outside of those forums. And, of course, "no skin in the game" -- no motivation for helping the OP to a solution ("it's not MY problem!")

That's a two-way street. Querants often invest very little in providing background/context for their problems. Or, resort to domain-specific terminology that might not be common knowledge outside of that domain.

Yes. A textbook solution has little value outside of that textbook!

I had the opposite experience" I *did* market research before proposing a new product design (so I knew what features folks had *been* purchasing in the past and could make a value judgement on the value of adding particular features to the NEW design). So, my proposal had some reasoning behind it.

And, made *no* friends of the Marketing staff from my efforts (because they wanted The Kitchen Sink... JUST IN CASE an absent feature MIGHT cost them a sale, sometime down the road).

Yes, but the second end can be a prepaid cell phone, etc.

This is the same thing. Whatever *you* receive the messages on deals with them. E.g., you can purchase services that will deliver those messages to an internet address where you can process them algorithmically.

Or, just receive them on your personal cell phone and "process" them with your eyes.

It doesn't. As long as you have the software/protocols in place to send/receive the message, it won't matter if you run it on a smart phone of a special "little device". Of course, these folks are trying to hit you on both counts: sell you the dispenser

*and* the toilet paper!

Exactly. They also know that you *won't* pay that for a remote temperature logger, etc.

Smart appliances will talk through a home gateway. I.e., use *your* internet connection (remember, The Internet is now considered a utility! :> ) to get to the outside world.

In moderation , not a problem. The OT posts in SED are pretty much posts b y people who also post things which are on topic. But over in Rec.Crafts.M etalworking there are people that cross post to get wider exposure done by people that never post anything on topic. They do not know anything about metalworking. And the off topic posts are not very entertaining.

Dan

Essentially just data communication back and forth. A few kilobytes at a time, at the most.

GSM does not work well in the US, at least not in areas where my clients need the service. One of them told me that Verizon has the best coverage but they will only let cell modems on their network after they have blessed them. Otherwise one has to go through an expensive certification process. It's not always that easy.

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

the US cellphones system is weird, they seems to be trying to make things as inconvenient as possible ;)

a regular cellphone might be an option many of them have a serialport that takes AT commands on the bottom connector.

I've also seen some use an USB modem and an MCU with USB host, guess that would also make certification easy

-Lasse

Verizon likes to think they have a much larger coverage area, but ATT is also pretty durn good. I am in a fringe (by far) area and ATT covers it better than Verizon. You mileage may vary.

In the US cellphone companies aren't trying to make things difficult, they are just trying to make as much money as possible which means they are vertically integrated as possible. They may not make the cell phones on their network, but they are going to make sure they have a death grip on them.

--

Rick

You can buy cell phone modules that are already certified.

Not really. CDMA is better in lone places because there is no signal latency limit like there is with GSM (although they kludged that later but this hasn't caught on).

Too large and also the models change too fast. At least once a year. That's not conducive to an industry application where you want the same parts to be available at least a decade or two.

The thing is, it would have to be on "the list". If it isn't on their list, then no.

This client has tried them all, he knows. It's an application where most sensors are out in the boonies.

Same for ISPs. Old Missy Bell is back :-(

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We'd need one for Verizon. Sure there are some you can buy and my client does so but it would be nice to have a smaller one and some more competition.

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

what I mean is they seem to in the business of handcuffing people to phones, they have had made be as incompatible and traffic generating as possible, not selling phone service.

-Lasse

Cheers

GSM does not work well in the US, at least not in areas where my clients

Depends on whether people let the companies do that to them. I live in the US and have cell service at $7/month on a low-usage 3-month at a time pre-pay, no contract.

Most people remain blissfully unaware that they are being fleeced. I personally know people who have a full-fledged $50/mo plan and make very few brief phone calls each month. For those who are constantly surfing the web and are glued to their cell phones such plans may be ok though.

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/