Martin – Australian Science

The Development of Mobile Phones

Martin — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 07:26:48 +0000

The developement of mobile phones has become so fast that it is difficult to keep up with it. If we look back at how it looked like in the past and where it is nowadays it is incredible to see how it has changed. With all their benefits they have become an irreplacible parts of our lives.

Basics:

A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone and a hand phone) is a device which can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link whilst moving around a wide geographic area. It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile network operator. The calls are to and from the public telephone network which includes other mobiles and fixed-line phones across the world. By contrast, a cordless telephone is used only within the short range of a single, private base station. [1]
The history of mobile phones charts the development of devices which connect wirelessly to the public switched telephone network. Early devices were bulky and consumed high power and the network supported only a few simultaneous conversations. Modern cellular networks and microprocessor control systems allow automatic and pervasive use of mobile phones for voice and data communications. [2]
Before cellular phones existed there where several mobile solutions available for example Push to Talk(PTT) Mobile Telephone System(MTS) and Advanced Mobile Telephone Service(AMTS) to name a few. The …As far back as the late 1930’s Radiophones where a very important and vital means of mobile communication for the armed forces. When Analogue mobile phones where first launched they quickly became known as cellphones because they allowed the mobile phone user to travel between cell sites. Motorola the american corporation is widely believed to be the first manufacturer in the world to produce portable mobile phones that did not rely on a motor vehicle for its power. The first mobile phone call to be made on a portable phone was early in the 1970’s.
When did mobile phones enter the consumer market place?Once the strong far Eastern manufacturers saw how rapidly mobile phone usage was growing and being taken up by the consumer as well as being a ‘must have’ business tool, they lost no time in mounting a serious challenge including such manufacturers as Sony Ericcson, Sharp, LG. Panasonic, Samsung, NEC and many more.
Since the early 1990’s researchers have realised the potential of incorporating other devices into mobile phones. The camera was recognised as a very beneficial device to include. The first patent was filed as far back as 1994 by AT&T and it is claimed that the first mobile camera phone was invented in 1997 by Phillipe Kahn. By 2007 85% of mobile phones manufactured had a camera included and they are now referred to as camera phones. [3]
As early as 1947, it was realized that small cells with frequency reuse could increase traffic capacity substantially and the basic cellular concept was developed. However, the technology did not exist.
1953 -AT&T proposed to the FCC a broadband mobile telephone system to operate in the 800 MHz region.
1970 -FCC announced a tentative allocation of 75 MHz in the 800 MHz region and invited industry to submit proposals for achieving communication objectives and demonstrating feasibility.
1971 -AT&T responds with a technical report asserting feasibility by detailing how a “cellular system” might be composed. No other proposed systems were submitted to the FCC.
1974 -FCC makes a firm allocation of 40 MHz for mobile telephone service and solicited applications for developmental Systems to prove the feasibility of so-called “Cellular Systems” but because of the beginnings of Bell Systems divestiture proceedings, ruled that Western Electric could not manufacture cellular terminal equipment. This was because Western Electric makes the network equipment and the restriction from selling both terminal and network products was to prevent further monopolization.
1975 -AT&T applied for authorization to operate a developmental cellular system in Chicago.
1977 -License granted in March of 1977. Illinois Bell Telephone constructs and operates a developmental cellular system.
1978 -Mid 1978 the Equipment Test phase commenced. The Service Test-phase started in late 1978. Twenty-one hundred mobile sets were procured from three suppliers for the test and the system served over 2000 trial customers.
1981 -FCC issues standard rules and due to the direction already taken, In the Bell System divestiture proceedings, now rules that Western Electric is permitted to manufacture cellular terminals as well as the network equipment.
In the years between 1974 and 1981, AT&T Bell Labs worked with all other cellular terminal vendors to develop their cellular phones so that consumers would have quality products available to use on the cellular network. [4]
The definition of an approach supporting an End-User in the development of mobile applications is a hard task because of the characteristics and the limitations of mobile device interfaces. In this paper we present an approach and a tool to enable End-Users to visually compose their own applications directly on their mobile phone. To this aim, a touchable interface and an ad-hoc visual language have been developed, enabling the user to compose simple focused applications, named MicroApps. The user has not in charge the creation of the user interface that is automatically generated. [5]

Conclusion:

It is amazing to observe the development of mobile phones considering their from where they started. The technology experts’ ideas are running wild bringing us some mobile phone novelties constantly and we are left only to keep imagining what is next to come.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones
[3] http://www.ukphoneshop.com/news/general-interest/the-history-and-the-development-of-mobile-phones-mobile-phone-networks-and-mobile-ph/829/
[4] http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/waveguide_3/cellular-history.html
[5] ”MicroApps Development on Mobile Phones” Stefania Cuccurullo, Rita Francese, Michele Risi and Genoveffa Tortora

Cite this article:
Reed M (2011-11-16 07:26:48). The Development of Mobile Phones. Australian Science. Retrieved: May 06, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/technology/the-development-of-mobile-phones/

test

The post The Development of Mobile Phones appeared first on Australian Science.

The Influence of Mobile Phones on Teenagers

Martin — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:14:11 +0000

Mobile phones have become very popular in recent years and their development has been amazing. It is no wonder why they have become irreplacible. With all applications which go with them they have gained a huge popularity with teenagers.

Basics:

A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone and a hand phone) is a device which can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link whilst moving around a wide geographic area. It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile network operator. The calls are to and from the public telephone network which includes other mobiles and fixed-line phones across the world. By contrast, a cordless telephone is used only within the short range of a single, private base station. [1]
The quality of sleep of almost half of 16 year olds may be affected by text messaging on mobile phones, a study from Belgium says.
The sleep of one in four 13 year olds could be affected too, says the researchers, who looked at the effects of text messaging on sleep interruption in teenagers (Journal of Sleep Research (2003:12:263).
In the research, about 2500 first and fourth year children (aged 13 years and 16 years respectively) in the Leuven study on media and adolescent health (SOMAH) based in Flanders, Belgium, were asked how often they were awoken at night by incoming text messages on their mobile phone.
In the first year students, 13.4% reported being woken up one to three times a month, 5.8% were woken up once a week, 5.3% were woken up several times a week and 2.2% were woken up every night. In the fourth year group, 20.8% were woken up between one and three times a month, 10.8% were woken up at least once a week, 8.9% were woken up several times a week, and 2.9% were woken up every night. The teenagers were also asked to indicate how tired they felt at various times.
“These preliminary findings suggest that mobile telephones may be having a major impact on the quality of sleep of a growing number of adolescents. It affected a quarter of the youngest to almost half of the eldest children in the sample,” says Jan Van den Bulck of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, who reports the findings in a letter to the journal. [2]
Cell phones are a great invention and a popular way to communicate—half of all Americans and Europeans use one. They allow us to work on the go and stay in touch. When put in the hands of a teenager, however, they can have some effects of which adults should be aware.
Cell phones provide security for teens and parents who worry about them; help is never out of reach and parents can check on their children easily.
Young people’s ability to communicate is extended—they can reach more people (including family) on a daily basis with cell phone speech and texting.
Teens’ natural tendency to follow trends may result in an emotional attachment to a cell phone (in its latest model) that is out of scale with its actual value. Some teens may even develop an “addiction” to the device that excludes anything not viewed or heard.
Cell phones allow only verbal, disembodied relationships at a time when adolescents should be working on developing a sense of their own—and others’—physical space. [3]
The acquisition of a cell phone appears to influence the communication choices of teens. In particular, cell phone users are much less likely to choose to use email than teens without cell phones. When asked which medium teens used to send written messages to friends most often, teens with cell phones were much more likely to select instant messaging and text messaging than email, while teens without mobile phones were more likely to choose email or instant messaging as their most favored textual method of communicating with friends. And while all teens are more likely to say they most often talk on the phone when communicating with their friends, teens with cell phones are more likely than teens without to say that they most often communicate with friends by written messages rather than the phone. Sixty-seven percent of teens without cell phones say they use a phone most often when communicating with their friends, compared to 58% of teens with a cell phone. So even though they potentially have more opportunities to talk on the phone than teens without cell phones, cell phone owners prefer to communicate with friends via written communication. [4]
It is a common sight – cell phones (mobile phones) in the hands of people, especially teenagers. Literature has provided in-depth evidence of the uses, advantages, disadvantages, impact, consequences and concerns about the use of mobile phones. Why teenagers fancy this device, is an interesting observation where the experts attach its significance to teenagers’ identity factor. The usage of mobile phones has re-shaped, re-organised and altered several social facets. Particularly focussing on teenagers’ mobile phone usage, literature has provided evidence of them being used for both positive purposes and negative reasons. Teenagers possessing mobile phone/s were 96.5% (n=111). A further breakup of age groups indicated that all the 17-19 olds had mobile phones. In addition, not possessing mobile phone/s is higher in the age bracket 15-16 year olds when compared to 13-14 olds. [5]
The spread of mobile communication among Finnish teenagers has been markedly rapid during the latter half of the 1990s. Young people have created and developed a communication culture that incorporates many special features, such as a rise in the use of text-based communication channels. Teenagers’ intersecting and selective use of communication channels has generated multimedial communication. From the theoretical standpoint provided by symbolic interactionism, we can ask whether communication through new media technologies generates new forms of social interaction. If this is the case, how could we describe and analyse these new forms of interaction? The media landscapes created by teenagers serve to articulate their personal space, as well as enabling their presentation of self and defining their relationships to others.[ 6]

Conclusion:

The influence of mobile technology on our lives is huge and even greater on teenagers. In the age in which they’re developing as individuals all that mobile phones birng leaves a strong trace on their growing up. The usage of mobile phones in their age should be controlled but they shouldn’t be discouraged from using them as they bring many benefits.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone
[2] ”Text messaging is spoiling teenagers’ sleep” by Roger Dobson
[3] ”The Effects of Cell Phones on Teenagers” by Laura Reynolds
[4] ”Teens and Technology” by Amanda Lenhart, Paul Hitlin, Mary Madden
[5] ”Mobile phones and teenagers: Impact, consequences and concerns – parents/caregivers perspectives” by Ravidchandran, Shanthi
[6] ”Mobile Communication as a Social Stage Meanings of Mobile Communication in Everyday Life among Teenagers in Finland” by Virpi Oksman

Cite this article:
Reed M (2011-11-15 08:14:11). The Influence of Mobile Phones on Teenagers. Australian Science. Retrieved: May 06, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/technology/the-influence-of-mobile-phones-on-teenagers/

test

The post The Influence of Mobile Phones on Teenagers appeared first on Australian Science.

Information technology and its impact on productivity

Martin — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 05:58:15 +0000

IT-information technology is one of the fastest developing branches of technology. It has become an important part of our every-day lives and doing serious business has become impossible without using IT. The question on everybody’s lips is: is it really improving workers’ productivity?

Basics:

IT is the area of managing technology and spans wide variety of areas that include but are not limited to things such as processes, computer software, information systems, computer hardware, programming languages, and data constructs. In short, anything that renders data, information or perceived knowledge in any visual format whatsoever, via any multimedia distribution mechanism, is considered part of the IT domain. IT provides businesses with four sets of core services to help execute the business strategy: business process automation, providing information, connecting with customers, and productivity tools.[1]

Productivity is a measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a ratio of what is produced to what is required to produce it. Usually this ratio is in the form of an average, expressing the total output divided by the total input. Productivity is a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input.[2]

The impact of information technology on work life has been one of the most talked about issues over the recent years. Chief executive officers spending millions of dollars on information technology face the critical issue of assessing the impact of this technology on work. Information system managers are increasingly required to justify technology investment in terms of its impact on the individual and his/her work. Measures of impact of information technology have narrowly focused on productivity impacts. This study uses a broader concept that is based on the impact of technology on the nature of work literature. This literature recognizes the multiple impacts of technology on work at the level of the individual. A review of the literature enabled us to generate thirty-nine items that were grouped into four constructs. In a pilot study, these constructs were assessed by observers in structured interviews with eighty-nine users to provide a criterion measure. Next, the users completed the thirty-nine item questionnaire. The unidimensionality, internal consistency and criterion-related validity of each construct were assessed. The pilot results suggest a four factor 12-item instrument that measures how extensively information technology applications impact task productivity, task innovation, customer satisfaction and management control. In a large scale study, a sample of 409 respondents was gathered to further explore this 12-item instrument and its relationships with other constructs (user involvement, user satisfaction, system usage). The results support the four factor model. Evidence of reliability and construct validity is presented for the hypothesized measurement model and future research is discussed.[3]

For over a decade, empirical studies in the information technology (IT) value literature have examined the impact of technology investments on various measures of performance. However, the results of these studies, especially those examining the contribution of IT to productivity, have been mixed. One reason for these mixed empirical findings may be that these studies have not effectively accounted for the impact of technology investments that increase production efficiency and improve product quality on firm productivity. In particular, it is commonly assumed that such investments should lead to gains in both profits and productivity. However, using a closed-form analytical model we challenge this underlying assumption and demonstrate that investments in certain efficiency-enhancing technologies may be expected to decrease the productivity of profit-maximizing firms. More specifically, we demonstrate that investments in technologies that reduce the firm’s fixed overhead costs do not affect the firm’s product quality and pricing decisions but do increase profits and improve productivity. In addition, we demonstrate that investments in technologies that reduce the variable costs of designing, developing, and manufacturing a product encourage the firm to improve product quality and to charge a higher price. Although this adjustment helps the firm to capture higher profits, we show that it will also increase total production costs and will, under a range of conditions, decrease firm productivity. Finally, we show that the direction of firm productivity following such investments depends upon the relationship between the fixed costs of the firm and the size of the market.[4]

257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited.
Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.[5]

As more information technology (IT) is deployed in organizations, it is important to understand its impact on individual performance and organizational productivity. Most past research has concentrated on identifying determinants of computer acceptance. This may be inadequate in determining the value and return on investment due to IT. Organizations are able to deploy IT more effectively if the consequences of its acceptance are obviously valuable. This study seeks to investigate the implications and consequences of IT acceptance by examining the relationships between IT acceptance and its impact on the individual user. The research model involves three components: user satisfaction, system usage, and individual impact. It is hypothesized that user satisfaction and system usage affect individual impact and that usage partially mediates the effect of satisfaction on individual impact.
A comprehensive questionnaire on computer acceptance was used to collect data from 625 employees of a large organization in Singapore. The results suggest that user satisfaction is an important factor affecting system usage and that user satisfaction has the strongest direct effect on individual impact. The results also demonstrate the importance of system usage in mediating the relationship of user satisfaction on individual impact.[6]

Based on previous empirical research, there seems to be little relation between investment in information technology (IT) and financial performance (often referred to as the `productivity paradox’). We hypothesize that this is due to the fact that many companies implement IT projects ineffectively. Like any other asset, IT must be utilized effectively to result in increased financial performance. By comparing successful users of IT and less successful users of IT, we show that successful users of IT have superior financial performance relative to less successful users of IT. However, any financial performance advantage is short-lived, possibly due to the ability of competitors to copy IT projects.[7]

Technology products are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. When thinking about your IT needs, always begin by thinking about your strategy and business goals.
Ask: how can I improve my business? Where can I get the jump on competitors? What are my biggest costs and where would I benefit most from efficiency gains?
Remember that IT can be a powerful source of competitive advantage. Do with IT what your competitors can’t, and customers will take note.
Only once you’ve decided exactly what it is that your businesses wants to achieve with technology, should you start looking for the solutions themselves.

Conclusion:

It cannot be said that information technology has a direct impact on productivity. It does help iproductivity in many cases and improve it, however, it does not have a direct influence on it.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity
[3] “The development of a tool for measuring the perceived impact of information technology on work” by G Torkzadeh and W.J Doll
[4] “The Impact of Technology Investments on a Firm’s Production Efficiency, Product Quality, and Productivity” by Matt E. Thatcher and Jim R. Oliver
[5] “Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care” by: Basit Chaudhry, MD; Jerome Wang, MD; Shinyi Wu, PhD; Margaret Maglione, MPP; Walter Mojica, MD; Elizabeth Roth, MA; Sally C. Morton, PhD; and Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD
[6] “The consequences of information technology acceptance on subsequent individual performance” by M. Igbaria and M. Tan
[7] “Does successful investment in information technology solve the productivity paradox?” by Theophanis Stratopoulos and Bruce Dehning

Cite this article:
Reed M (2011-10-05 05:58:15). Information technology and its impact on productivity. Australian Science. Retrieved: May 06, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/technology/information-technology-and-its-impact-on-productivity/

test

The post Information technology and its impact on productivity appeared first on Australian Science.

Cruise Ship Pollution

Martin — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:25:14 +0000

Besides being a great touristic attraction and money makers cruise ships also have their bad sides one of them being pollution. Tourists are often unaware of how serious the pollution is. Environmentalists are trying to fight it with all means.

Basics:

The environmental impact of shipping includes greenhouse gas emissions and oil pollution. Carbon dioxide emissions from shipping is currently estimated at 4 to 5 percent of the global total, and estimated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to rise by up to 72 percent by 2020 if no action is taken.[1]
The cruise ship industry is a significant and growing contributor to the United States economy, providing more than $32 billion in benefits annually and generating more than 330,000 U.S. jobs, but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Although cruise ships represent a small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide, public attention to their environmental impacts comes in part from the fact that cruise ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry’s desire to promote a positive image. [2]

Cruise tourism continues to be a major international growth area. In terms of achieving sustainable tourism it is, therefore, a sub-sector within which socio-economic, cultural and environmental considerations need to be continually analysed, addressed and monitored. The environmental impacts of cruise tourism are categorised in this paper and potential strategies that can be employed by both cruise line operators and cruise tourism destinations are explored. Secondary evidence of action by both parties suggests that the industry is taking a number of belated positive steps. However, decision-makers in cruise tourism destinations, particularly those outside North America, need to work closely with operators to facilitate both integrated waste management and intergenerational and intra-societal equity rather than merely accept the prospect of short-term economic gain.[3]
Bulk metal analyses of surficial sediments collected around the Norwegian Crown cruise ship grounding site in Bermuda indicated significant but localized contamination of reef sediments by copper and zinc, caused by the stripping of the tri-butyltin (TBT)-free antifouling (AF) paint (Intersmooth 460) from the underside of the hull. Highest copper and zinc values were found in heavily compacted and red-pigmented sediments inside the impact scar and were comparable to levels found close to slip ways of local boat yards where AF paints from hull stripping and cleaning processes are washed into the sea. The re-distribution of AF contaminated sediments by storms and deposition on nearby reefs constitutes a significant ecological risk that could delay recovery processes and reduce the effectiveness of remediation efforts. Whilst the ecotoxicological effects of AF paint particles interspersed with sediment is unknown, and in need of further study, it is argued that the significance of AF paint contamination of grounding sites has been overlooked.[4]
Cruise ships represent less than 1% of the global merchant fleet yet it has been estimated that they are responsible for 25% of all waste generated by merchant vessels. This volume of waste produces pressures on the environment, particularly with respect to ship-generated waste disposal at home ports and ports of call. Southampton, home port for both Cunard and P&O, and a port of call for Royal Caribbean Cruises, is the focus of this study. This paper investigates current waste management and disposal options for cruise ship generated waste and the associated impacts of this waste for ports. It is concluded that all cruise vessels should vigorously pursue a waste reduction strategy and for ports to provide adequate recycling, reduction and re-use facilities for cruise ship generated waste, optimising use of local facilities whenever possible.[5]

Conclusion:

Cruise ship pollution ranges from chemical contamination to ship-generated waste. In recent times the big ships have their own recycling facilities but that is not enough to lower the effects of all cruise ship pollution. This is the topic that should be dealt with more seriously and as soon as possible.

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_ship_pollution_in_the_United_States
[3] ‘Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check’ by David Johnson
[4] ‘Chemical contamination of a coral reef by the grounding of a cruise ship in Bermuda’ by Ross J Jones
[5] ‘The impact of cruise ship generated waste on home ports and ports of call: A study of Southampton’ by Nickie Butt

Cite this article:
Reed M (2011-09-19 08:25:14). Cruise Ship Pollution. Australian Science. Retrieved: May 06, 2024, from http://australianscience.com.au/environmental-science/cruise-ship-pollution/

test

The post Cruise Ship Pollution appeared first on Australian Science.