Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2008

mp3 and cellphone
can a mp3 player with bluetooth transfer files to a cell phone tat has bluetooth 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AZNMASTER (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth the Pirate
This should be kept in an appropriate place somehow. An ongoing 20+ shanty podcast involving a pun of Bluetooth being a pirate is not trivial. This is internet culture at its finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.89.177.229 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At best, this is irrelevant trivia (at worst, it's promotional). Not every mention of Bluetooth in popular culture deserves a see-also from this article.  The whole point of the "See also" section is to provide relevant links that are likely to give the interested reader more, relevant, information about the subject area (or closely related subject areas).  A whimsical, coincidental reference in a niche area of popular culture does not fulfil that.  Oli Filth(talk) 09:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is neither irrelevant nor trivia. I suspect Bluetooth the Pirate will be added to the official Bluetooth specification soon. Then you'll be adding him yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.89.177.229 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Amusing but it won't be in Wikipedia. Colfer2 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It already is in wikipedia. I'm simply cross-referencing it. He belongs here.  Go and listen to the shanties, and you will instantly agree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.89.177.229 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Stereo Bluetooth - AD2P(?)
I see this advertised on several devices now. Sony & Plantronics have headsets that do "stereo Bluetooth", any chance somebody could put that in the appropriate spec version. Iggynelix (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

 * RSSI - I moved this feature to 1.1, im unsure when this feature was added but i have 1.1 devices that have RSSI feature

-Towel401

Wikipedia: "Bluetooth specification allows connecting two or more piconets together to form a scatternet, with some devices acting as a bridge by simultaneously playing the master role and the slave role in one piconet."

Bluetooth: "A Bluetooth enabled device that is a member of two or more piconets is said to be involved in a scatternet. Involvement in a scatternet does not necessarily imply any network routing capability or function in the Bluetooth enabled device. The Bluetooth core protocols do not, and are not intended to offer such functionality, which is the responsibility of higher level protocols and is outside the scope of the Bluetooth core specification."

Is this a consistency problem? Cannot find that bluetooth acts as bridge anywhere in the spec.

Please check http://www.bluetooth.com/NR/rdonlyres/2550379F-F96D-4049-8AF2-1DE79B3F88C6/0/TradeMarks.pdf and refer to the (R) registered mark logo.

Currently wiki:bluetooth shows a (TM) trademark logo which i think is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by fckshkghkghksyhlysklgyhsklghklhsgklhghkhkgkyhkhskghllsgslugluglyhgkhsklhkhl H./lp[jgmo NO|VUHNI ]u\yhklkjljl+65fk h+ksh6+fkhk+f6h+kf615+f6s456k+k5s+k65g+kds6g41641v+5s6kv+165+165+65hkdshkdhsk+hk5h+k61hv+5khv1+khkv+56hks1hv6kshv4+16kh61+khkhv41h+565656656451++03294659465hk9+skksvkshvkshk6k+65gsvg91v65gs9v615k64k65v96k4956k9465k9-6419-k5s645-4k69-5k6-9269-45393- 969hf6dkhfkdshgfkshgfkshgks0hksh+ks0f.63s0 26902s36902hck9hks9hkh30l69c0.l69ca.c6+.0690k,czha9.kc3kfc3h.a69h0.k3chafchaklhfclas6h9cl36c3s690369khckada6k33 0hfak3 99mcbckhckakchj93fks.kfhkhkshfhgkcjslslgvlhs95359.3kc.k59c3580.h59kh325sh2kvc0.hskfhks9hkjv3hs9*dkhfc9khsk9chs2ki2h2fck2ha8kdfch210.ka8hdfckl21ahf1klahfclhl

219.95.250.143 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Bluetooth Devices
Is there a comprehensive list of Bluetooth devices? I'm not talking brand names/product names, but just general categories that exist. For example, a list of all the available devices for each protocol. e.g. HID: keyboard, joystick, game controller, etc... The reason for listing by protocol is because there are some products like keyboards that are available as either HID or SPP. It would be nice to see a comprehensive listing of this, maybe as a separate page under "See Also". I don't think the Class of Device lists every single type of Bluetooth product out there. For example, the Lego NXT brick, a robot experimenter kit, has a CoD of Toy which isn't all that descriptive. JettaMann (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

7th Gen Consoles
"Three seventh-generation game consoles, Nintendo's Wii, Microsoft's Xbox 360[4] and Sony's PlayStation 3 use Bluetooth for their respective wireless controllers."

I can't find anything anywhere stating what Microsoft uses for the Xbox 360. I'm sure it's not Bluetooth, it's likely proprietary. Reference #4 links to "^ Wii Controller. Bluetooth SIG. Retrieved on 2008-02-01." nothing in regards to the 360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.238.231 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

someone should say its just a portable hub. wireless hubtooth. the smaller the better. neat:)--72.83.129.240 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Question:2.4 GHz Bluetooth 2.0 ISM Band USB + EDR Adapter
Would this adapter work BOTH ways if it were plugged into a printer / scanner and the laptop was already Bluetooth equiped? (ie. print from laptop and receive from scanner?)

Thanks.

The Wiz fhdzhdgxjc vbdgtygb dyggb cd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.133.186 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth 2.0 section
I've added a "clarify" template to the "Bluetooth 2.0" section because it seems to be saying that its subject does not exist, even though it attempts to describe it. I think I understand what it's trying to say, but I don't really know, and the whole point of an encyclopedia is to make its information clear to people who aren't already experts. So I ask those experts to try to phrase this so it can be understood by someone whose head isn't buried daily in Bluetooth-industry activities. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the requester for clarification did not understand the standardization processes in ISO, IEEE and IETF. Although different in procedures, here is a standard in discussion with a certain stage of agreement. This status information is a very special subject and has not the life cycle of an encyclopedia. If you want only steady state on this page, you will exclude progress and innovation, may be that is the desired retrospective and conservative approach. The other part of the story is: There is no product in the market unless reported as existing. That apearance is correlated with, but not dependent of standardization. Now, where is your problem? You cannot control the times, and, please, read yourself elsewhere, if not contented. 91.64.77.78 (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't IT information be made intelligible to the average educated user who does not speak computer jargon? Is it necessary to use English words in peculiar ways to describe Bluetooth. Okay, the professionals in the field talk this way. However, Wikipedia is a general access resource, not a professional journal. Astrophysics is actually easier to understand for the average reader because those who write about it for a general audience have the courtesy to use language in its general meaning.

I happen to be well-versed in a somewhat esoteric field, but when I speak to the general public I use language they can understand. Is it really too much to ask that IT people do the same.

Write a bluetooth article that an intelligent lay reader can comprehend. Use English words in their general meaning, and if you must apply them in ways peculiar to your industry, explain what you mean. To do anything else is to treat your general readers with contempt. We hardly need another priesthood keeping the masses ignorant through obscurantist language this late in human history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy4honey (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Use general English usage to discuss technology with a general audience, not idiosyncratic usage peculiar to IT
This Bluetooth article is truly dreadful, and exemplifies the arrogance of IT and the enforced ignorance of the general public.

Why can't IT information be made intelligible to the average educated user who does not speak computer jargon? Is it necessary to use English words in peculiar ways to describe Bluetooth? Okay, the professionals in the field talk this way. However, Wikipedia is a general access resource, not a professional journal. Astrophysics is actually easier to understand for the average reader because those who write about it for a general audience have the courtesy to use language in its general meaning.

I happen to be well-versed in a somewhat esoteric field, but when I speak to the general public I use language they can understand. Is it really too much to ask that IT people do the same?

IT has appropriated a number of common English words and applied them in peculiar ways to describe the internal operations of technology. Without a glossary or explanation, these words may as well be ancient Sanskrit. The purpose of Wikipedia is the dissemination of information - using language that appears to be English but which is applied in ways peculiar to IT and apparently outside of their general meaning (but really, who can tell?) is not to enlighten but to obscure, and is contrary to Wikipedia's mission.

Write a bluetooth article that an intelligent lay reader can comprehend. Use English words with their general meaning, and if you must apply them in ways peculiar to your industry, explain what you mean. To do anything else is to treat your general readers with contempt.

We hardly need another priesthood keeping the masses ignorant through obscurantist language this late in human history. Buzzy4honey (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzy4honey (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would give some specific examples of the dreadful, arrogant jargon, the contributors could work to improve the article. Those of us steeped in this technology often use the first words that come to mind, and forget that not everyone speaks the same technical language. There is no conscious attempt to obscure or patronize. In most cases, where technical jargon is unavoidable, the terms are linked to their definitions. Please, help us improve the content without hurting our feelings. Bpantalone (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the specifications and features section is particularly rich in technical jargon. One of Wikipedia's main purposses is to help answer questions, for example I looked here to find if it would cost me money to transfer stuff to and from my phone, or if Bluetooth was a free network, and most of the article I found was gibberish to me. For example what is (BD_ADDR) (in the first paragraph) supposed to divulge? And a couple paragraphs down, I find this, which absolutely cannot decipher: Host Controller Interface (HCI) support for three-wire UART. I implore whoever can decipher the language to simplify into layman's terms. ATKX (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
Could someone explain why this technology was named for Harald I of Denmark, known as "Bluetooth"? It apparently has something to do with the lore that Harald Bluetooth united (if temporarily) Denmark, Norway, and Sweden under a single king.

Sca (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's what German Wiki has to say about it:


 * Die Namensgebung "Bluetooth" ist eine Hommage an den im 10. Jahrhundert lebenden dänischen Wikingerkönig Harald Blåtand (zu deutsch Blauzahn, englisch Bluetooth), der für seine Kommunikationsfähigkeit weit bekannt war. Harald Blåtand hatte Dänemark weitgehend christianisiert und vereint. Die Wahl eines skandinavischen Namensgebers erfolgte aufgrund der hohen Beteiligung der Firma Ericsson an der Bluetooth-Entwicklung.


 * Translation (mine): It was given the name "Bluetooth" in tribute to the 10th Century Danish Viking King Harald Bluetooth, who was widely known for his ability to communicate. Harald Bluetooth substantially unified and christianized Denmark. The choice of the Scandinavian name was based on the major contribution of the Firm Ericcson to the development of Bluetooth technology.


 * Since I personally know almost nothing about the technology or its history, I leave it to the techie edtiors of this article to decide whether to include this explanation.


 * Sca (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is bluetooth better than usb datacable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.2.47 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Development
Is there somebody out there who would like to contribute about the development of the Bluetooth standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.134.69 (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

more than one device for dongle //several dongles in computer
Hello,

In the article there is no mention is it possible to use several dongles in computer and how to manage them. Reason why i expect that there would be information on such thing is that I have several bluetooth devices at home-> * headset BH 604 http://europe.nokia.com/A4433270 and mouse keyboad set MX5500 http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/keyboards/keyboard_mice_combos/devices/3481&cl=US,EN

what happends when i use headset and keyboard simultaniously is that the keyboad is not working well. How this problem can be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.84.97 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bluetooth profiles - Incomplete paragraph?
It sounds a little bit confusing the end of the paragraph of the section Bluetooth profiles under 'Uses':

'These define the possible applications and uses of the'

Maybe i'm confused?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.86.19 (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)