Return to the archive index

Re: Implications for wearables

From: Dan Ritter <>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:02:07 -0400

At 12:08 PM 19990914 +0200, KPJ wrote:
>If the radio pulse is large enough it can pass through a thin tin foil.

If the pulse is large enough it can *arc* through your tin foil.

This discussion is essentially silly. In the battle between armor and
warheads, warheads have always won.

Let's look at what you're concerned about:
1. loss of function, temporary and permanent
2. loss of data, temporary and permanent

For (1), there's nothing to be done short which fits into the wearable
size/weight requirements. All we can hope for is that the hardware is either
insured or cheap (or both).

For (2), the solution is simple. Backup early and often and offsite. E.G.
do your backups over your wireless link; use a Coda-style filesystem; dump
complete backups whenever you have a physical proximity to a trusted 
computer or encrypted high-speed network link to same.

The one sensible idea to come out of this is "leave the computer at home,
do your work through speech recognition and synthesis over a cellphone".
How many years away from this are we? My guess is 5ish.

-dsr-

--
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to 
Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org

+Previous Message in Thread | Next Message in Thread

From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty

Archive created with babymail