iPhone4 information

CNET Top 5: Top 5: Things to consider when buying a smartphone

Some issues to think about when buying a new smart phone - this is a good video!

CNET Top 5: Highest radiation smartphones

SARR - this is a review of smart phones based on the amount of radiation they emit!

Give Me Cake (A personal rant on business, ethics and technology)

First some humor - the first person has their cell implanted in finger, second in nose and the third is receiving a fax - care to guess where it is coming out?

Seems like the past few days I have been sharing my thoughts on prorated fees for data both land line and cell based. Instead of various sentences explaining my position figured it would be good to put most of my thoughts in a single place.

The simple version is I do not think it is ethical or right for me to pay for someone else’s mistakes. When a company leader or leadership team decides to pay themselves and their staff large bonuses instead of investing in infrastructure due to poor planning and then complain because the consumers did what was requested and punish them for listening and doing only what they were asked it is wrong. Further when a company is loosing money executives do not deserve any bonuses period – how can you reward someone for poor performance or when a company reduces work force artificially or cooks the books. If we want to keep the same structure in place with little changes then instead of basing on quarterly or yearly do so on a weighted 3 year performance so that strategy is required. However I think factors such as customer satisfaction (rating on meeting of real and implied customer expectations and service) should factor into compensation as well as the performance of all departments with at least a third based on customer service and a minority based on meeting your own personal objectives.

Long version using analogy. I equate exploitation to strip mining or to plowing a field using a crop that you know will after 1 or 2 seasons leave the soil infertile. Sure you can do it and it is your choice but it is not wise because sue the cash crop will get you $3-4/unit for two seasons but does it not make more sense to run crops that will consistently ensure you get a $2/unit over 10-15 years while allowing you in off seasons to use that same soil to grow other items which will also allow you some gain say another $2-3/unit and leave the nutrients in place and with proper planning albeit more work allow a longer effective yield of about $4-5/unit. Or look at it this way – you can rob a bank and provided you do not get caught get away with say $200K one time but you cannot spend the money and must launder it say for 20-40% so you make say $120-160K and when that money is gone if you did not invest you have to rob another bank and home you are not caught and in the process of taking money from others you did not in fact earn you harm the bank customers or you kill some people – get where I am going? Yet, you start a sound business or you get a nice paying job – you are making say $20-30K/yr – 10 years = $200 - 300K providing a service and risking no potential harm or loss of life.

So lets move on to the sell of bandwidth. My question is why has more money been invested in the equivalent of hub technology – shared bandwidth. Example – 100 GB and 50 users = max worst case 2 GB/user instead of switch (more efficient) so 100 GB and 50 users = 100 GB/user. Any here is how I explain what has been done in the industry overall but I will use cakes as an example of my opinion of the pay for more bandwidth scenario:

• XYZ Cake Company - Buy our new flavor of cake it is great and has all of these layer of icing – you will really enjoy and it will dazzle your taste buts and improve your live – is you are diabetic – no worries there either we have a formulation that is sugar free
• Consumer – that sounds great I will get on
• XYZ Cake Company – great – do think any of your family members want one
• Consumer – sure - want two (2) more for them?
• XYZ Cake Company – Happy to hear that here you go
• Consumer – Thank you and takes cakes home and presents cakes to family. Family members take a bite of their own cakes and there is a knock on the door
• XYZ Cake Company – For each bite of the cake here is the cost/bite
• Consumer – but I already paid for the cake and the container to carry it and now you are telling me I have to pay for each bite I take
• XYZ Cake Company – that is correct – in the past we thought the cost of the cake covered the materials and the extra we charged for the container to take it home in covered our expenses but we realized demand for the cakes was so great we were loosing money because we did not anticipate demand and our manufacturing plants and the container maker cannot keep up so we are charging you for each bite of the cake to generate money to cover our poor planning
• Consumer – you are joking right – this cannot be right
• XYZ Cake Company – see the fine print on the contract you signed – we can assure you it is perfectly legal – further – we see you are using you own silverware and napkins – that is unacceptable – you must use our (here is the cost) or you will not be able to eat the cake and should for what ever reason you find a problem since you were not using our items we can not nothing to make matters right by you.

Here is the question – would you buy a cake from a company who sold them like that?

• How Cell Phones Work
• How Smartphones Work
• Network Hubs vs Switches
• How LAN Switches Work
  
  

So what are your thoughts want to know your opinions

Disclaimer - this post in is strictly my personal opinion and posted in part because I personally believe I or my partners in my new venture could do a better job of running most companies while assuring that they are both sustainable and profitable with a focus on innovation leading to profit instead of profit in and of itself. No company is identified and the only one's mentioned are done so for humor or to explain and differentiate the technology used.

Android 2.0 Settings vs. Android 1.6 Settings

Android official website

Android 2.0

Google Projects for Android

Android is a mobile operating system running on the Linux kernel. It was initially developed by Android Inc., a firm later purchased by Google, and lately by the Open Handset Alliance. It allows developers to write managed code in the Java language, controlling the device via Google-developed Java libraries.

The unveiling of the Android distribution on 5 November 2007 was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 47 hardware, software, and telecom companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices. Google released most of the Android code under the Apache License, a free software and open source license.

Thanks CoreyOConnor for the information.

OS diversity protects cell phones from virus outbreaks (ARS Technica)

I post this because I believe the practice applies to all aspects of life. So often we as a society strive to achieve conformity and uniformity. Even the concept of racism while premised on a deep rooted hatred of self projected on to others focuses on denigrading those people who are different and yet that is where the true strength of what we do and who we are resides!

Source

A well-written MMS virus could saturate an entire population of cell phones within a few hours, based on network modeling using real-world use patterns. The only reason there hasn't been a serious problem, the models suggest, is the fragmentation of the phone operating system market.

By John Timmer | Last updated April 2, 2009 1:00 PM CT

Events like the spread of the Conficker worm illustrate the risks posed by the combination of a sophisticated operating system and an always-on Internet connection. With the expanding popularity of smartphones, which come with multitasking operating systems and convenient software development kits, the same risk may definitely apply. But, despite the fact that exploit code has been around for several years, nothing on the scale of Conficker has ever struck the cellphone world. A study that will be released online in Science Express looks into why this might be the case, and concludes that a major contributor is the lack of an operating system monoculture in the cellphone world.

The authors say that the customized combinations of hardware and software that characterized early cellphones left little for a virus writer to target, but the rise of smartphones is changing matters rapidly. Since 2004, there have apparently been over 400 phone-specific viruses, and the authors say that many of these show a level of sophistication that indicates their authors have been following developments in the PC world (or, potentially, the authors are one and the same). Some of these viruses were even able to spread by both Bluetooth and MMS services.

So why haven't we been greeted with news reports of phone viruses run amuck? To look into the answer, the authors modeled the spread of viruses using real-world data on the connectivity of a cellphone network. For reasons that aren't clearly spelled out, they obtained a month of anonymized cellphone usage data from a carrier, which included the timing and location of every connection made by over six million users through over 10,000 cell towers. Based on that data set, they could infer both the connectivity among the nodes (phones) on the network, as well as their physical proximity. Given that data, they could run standard epidemiological models of infection spreads (one of the authors is based at a medical school) and see how different assumptions change the spread of the virtual infection.

The authors modeled two modes of infection. For bluetooth, the density of phones within a given tower's range was used to approximate the number of phones that wound up within bluetooth range, and thus would be targeted for infection. For spread via MMS, the number of calls placed among the company's customers was used to approximate whether a given user was likely to have another in their address book, which would be used to target them for MMS infection; attempts to spread would be made every two minutes. The authors assumed an effective virus that didn't require any actions on the recipient's part to infect their phone.

In both cases, the authors found what they termed a "percolation phase," in which the virus built to a critical mass that allowed its rapid propagation. The requirement for physical proximity slowed Bluetooth viruses down significantly, as these infections typically required several days to reach saturation. The authors suggested that this might be sufficiently slow to allow an antidote to be rolled out by the service provider. For viruses spread by MMS, that would be a luxury, as they reach saturation within a few hours.

The primary limit for the MMS viruses is network fragmentation—at least some collections of users are unlikely to be plugged into the wider user network, and thus the virus is unlikely to ever reach these isolated clusters of users. Hybrid viruses, also tested by the authors, eventually found their way in to these isolated clusters, though.

A key factor that moderated all of these behaviors, however, was the market penetration of the operating system involved. The researchers considered both the relatively low market share of smartphones in general (about five percent) and the fact that different operating systems have different slices of that pie, with Symbian being relatively common, and the Palm OS being quite rare. Factoring this in showed that the OS marketshare affected both the length of the percolation period (longer for the less popular ones) and the degree of network fragmentation—the less common the OS, the more common isolated clusters of users would be.

So far, competition within the smartphone space has remained fierce. If anything, Symbian users are being made safer by the arrival of new competitors on the scene, as its prevalence, and thus its risk, is dropping. At the same time, however, smartphones are becoming far more popular, which will exacerbate everyone's chances of getting their phone infected.

Again, all of this was done with the assumption that infections would be successful. For the most part, it appears that smartphone OS developers have the same advantage virus writers do: they're well aware of the sorts of vulnerabilities that have plagued the desktop world, and are placing far more restrictions on the code that runs on these devices.

Science, 2009. DOI: 10.1126/science.1167053