RFID could be in all cell phones by 2010

TalkBack 7 of 71:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You've missed a key issue--that of the complexity of different systems.

A key point missed is that the more complex systems become usually less reliable they are in emergencies. Moreover, as complex systems rely on complex subsystems and complex couplings between them, then in an emergency there is a very real chance the system may not fully work or it might have failed completely. In essence, simple systems are often a more reliable bet in an emergency as there's less to go wrong with them, however, their very simplicity also means that they're often less capable than their more complex counterparts.

Cell phone systems can be very vulnerable due to the limited range of each cell together with any cell's limited ability [redundancy] to connect with the rest of the telephone network, also cells rely heavily on existing hi-tech infrastructure to keep them running (which is more likely to fail during an emergency). If several cells go down and their interconnection with the network also fails then a catastrophic failure of the network in all nearby or relevant environs could easily ensue, especially in areas where say natural disasters are unfolding.

In such circumstances, having a much lower tech alternative, such as a portable HF transceiver, would probably be a much more effective and reliable option than a cell phone.

Similarly for GPS, I often go bush walking and I'm amazed how often GPS doesn't work. A valley, large overhanging rocks, trees--especially wet ones--all conspire to kill the GPS signal. In some places (valleys etc.), the GPS might not be available for mile after mile (as I've witnessed).

Eons ago, I too had some military training; and while GPS is very nice and comforting, I would not trade a GPS for my map-reading and other navigation skills. Except for being either unconscious or dead, these low-tech skills will always remain useful to me (and the batteries can't go flat either).

Correct, such low-tech options are not as precise as GPS but their 'overheads' are also much lower, and in a emergency this can be very valuable and important point. Low-tech systems can easily be improvised whereas high-tech ones usually cannot (or they take much longer to set up and get working--and they often consume more resources too).

Let me give you a low-tech example: during WW-II, POWs would often receive news from radios made from the very lowest tech parts, often improvised from old telephone bits, bits of wire and old razor blades (which were used as a primitive cat's whisker detectors). Such improvisation could only have happened with low-tech AM radio broadcasts. Had the news been broadcast on the more modern FM or the latest digital radios, then building an improvised radio set in such circumstances would have been totally out of the question (as more complex parts and circuitry would be needed to build a radio that used these more complex technologies).

Another low-tech communications system (probably the lowest next to smoke signals), is the extremely effective and reliable Morse code. Any person in the military more than a decade or so ago would be very cognizant of this fact. Morse possesses some quite remarkable properties in that it not only extremely reliable but also it can cut through the weakest of signal conditions or work in situations where considerable interference exists to the extent that no other system is capable of. Morse can be sent though almost any coherent communications channel, as all it needs is for the channel to be turned on and off in a sequence of dots and dashes.

Morse is just as at home being tapped out on a water pipe that interconnects prisoners' cells (also effectively used in WW-II by POWs) as it is by being sent over say a cell phone. Extremely meager in bandwidth (hundreds of Morse channels could be fitted into a single 3G cell phone channel) make it very useful in emergencies.

There is however, a major gotcha with Morse code. In today's world, where unless something can be learned in just a few minutes, it is discarded, thus Morse struggles as it requires considerable leaning and practice before one is proficient.

In a way the Morse example exemplifies and contrasts the two opposing views in the above posts. The first being high-tech, no-brainer-to-use solutions, which when working, are easy and highly effective but nonetheless potentially very unreliable in an emergency; whereas the other involves much more reliance on one's own training together with the necessary resilience and resourcefulness.

In an emergency, both have their place, it just depends on the circumstances.


_____________


BTW, a few years back on Leno's show, a competition was held between two of America's top SMS cell phone texters and a couple of old-timer key-pounders (Morse operators). Was hardly a competition though, as one would expect, the Morse operators left the kiddy texters floundering in the dust. Again, it goes to show that new technology is not always the best (at least in some applications).

Posted by: Irritated_User   Posted on: 06/29/09 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Server Consolidation and Containment With Virtual Infrastructure VMware To meet the constant demand to deploy, maintain and grow a broad array of ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now