[Discuss] [OT] Smart Phones

[bill at horne.net (Bill Horne)]

On 3/1/2013 12:22 PM, Gordon Marx wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Rich Pieri<richard.pieri at gmail.com>  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'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


1.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_navigation
2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_signals

-- 
Bill Horne
339-364-8487