h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Quite, a recent article in one of the PC mags in the UK, ran tests on 12 different products from different manufacturers. They found that only 2 of these devices even reckognised each other, but still failed to comunicate. These included Palm, IBM, Ericsson, TDK, Xircom and a few other majour manufacturers devices. Plus the recent withdrawl of the Nokia 6310 due to Bluetooth problems leaves people wandering as to the "Actual compatibility" of these products.

Also I had "thought" that 2.4Ghz was the resonance frequency of water... Slightly worrying as they use that frequency in Microwaves (briefly mentioned in your article and refered to about interference, but not explained).

I have made changes to the article, this time trying to tone down the language a bit. I think it is now at an acceptable level. After all, this is NOT for kids, it's for someone seeking knowledge on the subject, so a bit of familiarity with the terms is a prerequisite.

OK I hope I get the names right:

FishGnu and Xyroth (??) I had also heard something about it being at the same frequency of water. But I found nothing. As for the article you mentioned FishGnu... read below...

I believe this entry to be concise to a certain extent regarding the title. What do you all think? I didn't find it necessary to add any extra bits of information.


How is the article now?
**waiting**

I think it's an improvement. Personally I would still reduce the technology/specifications stuff and move to the end of the entry what's left that's essential - but that's your call, not mine.

>>And, to be honest its going to be forced down the consumers necks, whether they want it or not, as too many companies have invested in it

How are they going to force us? There are lots of technologies that never won popular support even after huge investment, and they either fail completely or go the way of Concorde.

If they can get the production costs down to the originally envisaged $5.00 per chip, then bluetooth will eventually be everywhere.

however a lot of stuff that bluetooth was originally designed for is already done quite well now by a combination of irda, wireless ethernet and usb.

Does anyone know how long it takes before the article gets picked up? Also... if anyone else is reading the article... any comments? I believe it's ready...

u ?

Does anyone know how long it takes before the article gets picked up? Also... if anyone else is reading the article... any comments? I believe it's ready...

u ?

Could be a couple of days, a week, a month, or longer...

Then if it does get picked (that's if, not when) it has to be allocated to a sub-editor, who might have it for another month or so. Then it joins a long queue to get into the Edited Guide - could be another month, or two.

Or it might be much quicker. Or much slower. Nobody knows.

So meanwhile you might as well go off and write some more entries and put them into the pipeline.

Bels

Good idea, belz. Thanks. I did have a few in mind.

You've chosen a *very* complex subject for your first entry and set yourself quite high a standard and here's my appreciation to that!
However, others above already pointed out where the problem is: it's not primarily on your side but it resides in the type of readers the entry is likely to find. Like preparing food, you'll have to cook or even pre-chew (if that's a word) the heavy stuff and that's where the problem falls back on your side

You can get rid of the title's repetition and the 'Introduction' header because it's only natural that an entry starts with an intro.

I'm afraid that listing the protocol stacks doesn't contribute anything useful for the layperson. If at all then you might want to point out what the visible consequences are. (btw, there's an entry on the OSI Reference Model at A593624). So instead of walking the protocol stacks you can point out that the link provides encryption, two-way connections (up to 60 at a time), can transport packages as big as 64k etc. You get the idea Footnotes are also good for hiding the more stuff in a corner.

Same with Connection-less/oriented and Circuit/Packet-switched traffic. Ok, it's in the specs but your average reader is a *user*, not a spec-reader. Suggestion: something like...
'Bluetooth allows for CS and PO traffic so you can have your traffic metered either by the time or by volume, whichever is appropriate for what you're doing. CS is a simulated point-to-point cable connection and is metered by time (ie: there's a 'currency per minute' tarrif), whereas packet oriented traffic (unsurprisingly) shares a radio link with other users' traffic and the provider charges you according to a 'currency per kilobit' rate These traffic types are called ACL (...) and SCO (...) in the specs..

This way you can shorten the 'specification' section and fill it with more life without losing precision. In general, it's better for an h2g2 article to *first* mention the feature's property or capability and *then* (or in a footnote) link it to an abbreviation or buzzword, er, sorry, I mean technical term. [Oh yeah, I know I'll have to go through some 'radar' entry of mine ]

The 'Applications' chapter, if moved to the top, would provide a means to 'catch' the reader and lure them into reading further on. The 'Problems' section could perhaps use a GuideML unordered bullet list ( ... ) but it's right on spot in terms on *how* it's written

Technically, you're doing everything with tags. Using ... around your paragraphs makes it much nicer.



I know this all sounds like I was ripping your entry to shreds. Mind you, it's all just *suggestions* from another in the same situation (see A635681 for example)!


Oh, and I could bore the living daylight out of anyone by listing the protocol stacks used in UMTS



Bossel

news: bluetooth chips now cost $10.00 per chip, so a lot of applications suddenly become possible that were not a few months ago.

OK, after a looong month, i came back and in one blow did a lot of editing.

I did notice a lot of ppl were pointing out the specifications, so I put that in a supplemental article. What do you think of that idea?

And all the GUIDE ML has been corrected... it's better now. I think the page is more appealing than it was before.

ooh ooh, and I'm a sub editor now... lol.. but that's not ironic, I hope.

uhm...

You're using wrong smiley code, Frog!

You should compose it of a colon, a hyphen and a 'D' like this < : - D >

I wouldn't have thought that Bluetooth might interfere with mobile phones because of the stringent out-of-band power level restrictions but if you say so, there must be something to it.

Anyway, this is just whopping brilliant great magnificent! I didn't even spot a typo!



Bossel

* off into the sulking corner again *

er... just to drip a drop of water on that parade: There's a typo in in the *Title*: it's "it's"

title, corrected.
I also added the comments by The Fish - (Gnu) - In 26 days expect me to disapear, as I'll be on my Honeymoon...

and

xyroth (rash enough to tackle intelligence@A584525)

Jesus christ, These long name.. anyways, I combined their statements into one paragraph, and credited them.

Wahoo, let's do a little dance. Oh, I have to inform them now, don't I?

about the name, you can just use "xyroth". it is traditional on h2g2 that you can have a comment in brackets that says something extra to the name.

it is then usually ignored when refering to someone.

for example ... bossel (with a goo berret) is usually just refered to as bossel.

I hope that coment clarifies things for you.