Communications

You are currently browsing articles tagged Communications.

A free wi-fi sign in Seattle. Image courtesy of Joe Mabel

A free wi-fi sign in Seattle. Image courtesy of Joe Mabel (Wikimedia Commons)

Being someone who believes in ‘alternative’ health models can’t be easy: you have the whole of science ridiculing you, the whole of the real hippy movement disowning you, and now, the evil council switches on the Antichrist, otherwise known as free wi-fi.

Quite amusingly, the trial run of the wi-fi has been running for seven months, and it’s only now that the posse have started complaining about ‘negative energy’ and ‘ley lines’ being distrupted.

People have even started selling so-called ‘orgone’ generators to ‘recycle’ the negative energy. (Interestingly, PZ ‘it’s a frackin’ cracker’ Myers has noted that these ‘orgone’ generators are supposed to pump out magical sexual energies. No pun intended.)

The Telegraph article states that:

At a public meeting to discuss alleged health problems in the Somerset town, residents complained of numerous symptoms including headaches, dizziness, rashes and even pneumonia.

I’m intrigued. Millions of people live within range of a wi-fi network 24/7 (myself included) and the number of those reporting negative effects is positively miniscule. Assuming the negative effects are caused by wi-fi networks in a select few people, how come so many of these people are congregated around Glastonbury? Why does the population of the town, which was approximately 9,000 at the time of the last census, have such a high proportion of people who claim to be affected?

Then we come to the scientific aspect. The amount of EM radiation emitted by a wi-fi base station is tiny. It’s in the 2.4~5gHz band, which is the same as mobile phone masts–and domestic microwave ovens.

Wireless base stations emit a nominal power output of 20dBm. A domestic microwave, which has a power rating, say, of 800W, emits 59dBm, far more than a wi-fi base station. Even assuming that 99.9% of the energy is caught by the Faraday cage that microwaves employ to keep the operator safe, the total output would only be 29dBm. That’s still more than a wi-fi station would ever put out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

Andrew Burnham, the Minister for Culture (sorry, Culture Secretary – what exactly is his job?) has said in an interview with the Telegraph that cinema-style age ratings for Web sites are ‘an option’.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

Compelete and utter nonsense. It’s totally unworkable.

Firstly, let’s remember the original goals of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The whole point was to create a medium where anyone could freely express himself, and be out of the reach of governments and censorship. This idea undermines the whole principle of ‘net neutrality’ on which the Web was founded.

Moreover, let’s not forget that filters are used all the time: and there are always ways to circumvent them. Just ask any twelve-year-old how they access Bebo during their ICT lessons: proxies are available and for every website blocked, another mirror or identical proxy will spring up somewhere else.

What Mr. Burnham appears not to understand is that the Internet is very much decentralised. Any computer can host a Web site with the right software installed, and when that’s connected to the Web, it can be accessed from any machine in the world. Mr. Burnham’s understanding of the Internet appears to be like a spider: with all information in the centre and clients all outside. It does not work like that.

It worries me that the Government is getting more heavy-handed with regards to the Internet, and, for once, even it’s now becoming worthwhile to host one’s Web site outside the UK. Guido Fawkes’s blog is moving to a host outside Great Britain, because, in his words, ‘Google UK likes to please governments.’ Even the Daily Mail (and most of its commentators!) agree that the whole idea is barmy.

Tom Watson MP, a Labour MP and cabinet minister who does understand technology, is inviting the public’s opinion on his Web site, which he will forward on to Burnham. It might be worth heading over there and giving your opinions on this cretinous proposal.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is it just me, or does this whole Web 2.0 thing seem to be turning into a bit of a marketing-fest? It seems to me that everyone’s primary goal on the New Web (which is really how the Old Web was meant to be) is to have as big a presence and following as possible.

I have this blog, a Twitter account, a Delicious account, another, more ‘traditional’ web site at jonathan-rothwell.co.uk and I post to a couple of internet forums. However, social media ’superstars’ like iJustine and Chris Pirillo seem to be more omniescent than Starbucks. (In Pirillo’s case, you can even spy on him, 24/7, using the live stream. Making life easier for stalkers? Never let it be said.)

I don’t have any objection to this: in fact, I relish it. The fact that people can become celebrities over the Internet is one of the best aspects of it: it truly is the common man’s own expression medium. However… that said…

We also have people telling us how to become successful on the net. Apparently, we need to ‘market ourselves’ and build up a ‘personal brand’. Really? Does this mean every Internet user needs a marketing suite, similar to those supplied by the likes of AMV BBDO, Wolf Ollins and Martin Lambie-Nairn to corporations for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Does this mean we should all have a corporate colour scheme? A jingle? A logo? Slogans?

How about these, then?

  • Jonathan Rothwell: destroying badly built PCs since 1992.
  • Crashed Pips: The world’s easiest demotivator.
  • Crashed Pips: Oh. My. God.
  • Jonathan Rothwell: Ever been to Thorpe Park? Remember Nemesis? He’s worse than Nemesis.
  • 97% of readers rated Crashed Pips more coherent than Norma Major’s latest book.
  • Crashed Pips: it might be crap, but at least it’s free. (i.e. you don’t get paid if it damages you emotionally.)

In theory, if we are to believe the SM marketing types, now I’ve put these slogans up here, people will come flooding to this website in such numbers that I’ll have to take up prostitution as a full-time job in order to pay for the bandwidth.

I somehow doubt it. Heavily.

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries