The Blog of a Wondering Dragon

For as long as there have been wireless remote controls for TV's and other consumer electronics, they have been using Infrared (IR) to transmit their signal. There are many reasons why IR was chosen and is still in use today. And for the most part this has worked fine, as IR has very few cons. However, with the trend of today's world to make everything wireless, there is something else out that I think works much better and could replace IR in all consumer electronic remotes.

The PlayStation 3 (PS3) is Sony's latest game console. It is also Sony's latest attempt at making a home media device to compete with Microsoft's Media Center versions of Windows. (That includes the xBox 360 which also directly competes with the PS3 as a game console.) It is in this home media part of the PS3 that I think they really hit on something great that could make all remotes 10x better and more useful then they currently are.

To make watching movies/DVD's easier on the PS3, Sony sells a remote with buttons similar to the remotes of other DVD players. Without the remote, you are forced to use a game controller, which is not intuitive to say the least. They did this for the PlayStation 2 (PS2) as well. However, unlike the PS2's remote, which uses IR, the PS3's remote uses Bluetooth. For the most part, I am assuming the decision to do this is based on the fact that the PS3's game controllers also use Bluetooth, and adding an IR port would mean adding additional hardware. Whereas Bluetooth is already a wireless protocol that could/can support a remote anyways. This deviation in standards has created a much more useful remote then any IR remote for many reasons.

A standard IR remote for any device really only has one con for the average consumer. It is that IR requires a direct line of sight (that includes reflecting) to send a signal to the device's IR receiver. Basically this means that you can not have anything in the path between the remote and it's device. This would include such scenarios as holding the remote under a blanket, or have the device hidden behind a wall/inside a cabinet. However, Bluetooth does not have this restriction. It will go through blankets, cabinets and even a few walls to send it's signal. This means you can keep that remote under the blanket with you. It also means you can control devices from other rooms! Imagine being able turn off your kids TV from behind the door, or even change stereo music from another room! How cool and useful would that be?

In fact, using Bluetooth in place of IR also yields some more useful features that IR can't do. Consider this all too common problem, you lost your remote and have to buy a universal remote to replace it? If you have ever done that, then you know what a pain it is to search for the code to program the remote to work with your device. And sometimes even then, not all the buttons on the remote will work with your device. You could even loose some features of your device because the remote does not have buttons for them. However, if the remote and your device were using Bluetooth instead of IR, you have just one simple step of pairing the remote with your device and BOOM! It will work perfectly with your device, and all the supported buttons on the remote would work too! No more hassle of searching and entering codes. And no worrying about loosing the code booklet that came with the remote as you would be able to pair it over and over again with any other supported device.

Yet even another feature of Bluetooth is the ability to control just how many "remotes" would work for the device. Like for instance a TV! Currently you can buy mini remotes that will allow you to control many TV's at once. Such as turning off a row of TV's in a store, or changing the channel in a sports bar. With Bluetooth, you can set it so that only "one" remote would work with it, and thus no one else could take control of your TV or other device again! This might sound more useful to businesses where this happens, but the first time a friend comes over with one of those mini remotes, you'll wish you had this feature.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg! Since Bluetooth allows two-way communication, many more features are possible. Such as a touch pad screen with buttons that change dynamically based on the device your controlling, and the features you are currently using. Or even a display that tells you what TV channel you are own and what show is on that channel. For music it could display what level the volume is at and, in many cases, what song is currently playing. Also don't forgot that most Cell Phones now support Bluetooth as well! The possibilities are endless!

Given all the benefits, I am slightly amazed that no one else has done this yet. Granted, I am sure there are many reasons why any manufacture won't just drop IR and use Bluetooth right away. But a combination of the two for a start could have some great possibilities to transform the remote control into something new.

This past weekend, Jan 26th was the opening weekend for the new movie Legion. Based on the commercials for the movie I thought it would be interesting, and opted to see it at the request of my girlfriend.

To say I was entertained would be a lie. The acting was like cardboard cut-outs, the plot had gaping holes, and there was really very little action combined with extremely predictable results.

I had not intended to write a review of it myself, however a friend of mine did. And I wanted to give props to it as I completely agree with it, and probably could not have said it as good myself.

So go read it here: http://www.caffeinatedcritics.com/2010/01/legion.html

This past weekend I went on my annual family vacation. We went to Florida again and I got to connect with a friend I hadn't seen in awhile. But that is not what I wanted to talk about. The fastest way to get anywhere today is to fly there. However, since September 11, 2001, air travel in the USA has been radically changed in the name of security. Now I don't mind the increased delays so much, so long as there is a point to it. But recently it seems the point has been just to annoy passengers and cause unnecessary delays.

In the last month, two airports had terminals closed down for several hours to re-screen all passengers because someone had managed to sneak by the security checkpoints. In both cases the offending person was eventually found. And their reasons for bypassing checkpoints were not a threat to anyone. Now I can understand why the terminals were closed to find the person. However, with all the money that has been sunk into the added security, I find it rather disturbing that it has obviously not been spent wisely.

It is no secret that in many Las Vegas casinos they have camera's everywhere, and monitor "every" detail of just about everything that happens on the game floors. In most cases airports do/should have the same thing. In addition to this, casinos also employ face recognition software that allows them to know instantly when a known gambling cheater enters their building. From their they can pretty much track where that person goes, what they do, so they can eventually escort them out. Now this isn't any new technology, it works very well and they've had it for over a decade and more. In other words meaning this tech has been around long enough to be well tested and prices dropped a lot.

With all that being said, can the TSA honestly give one good reason why they have not done this in at least the major airports? I know this has not been done, because if it had, in the recent two airport terminal closings they could have easily tracked where the person who got through security checkpoints went. Thus allowing agents to find this person without having to re-screen all the passengers and avoiding lengthy delays.

Furthermore, in the last few years of air travel I have done, I have witnessed some rather disturbing incidents that only further prove my point of the TSA's gross oversight of "additional security" in airports. The most recent of which happening on my last flights.

On my last trip to Florida, I of course flew down there. Anyone who has flown in the last few years knows about the increased "changes" in what is allowed on carry on bags as well as the annoying new procedures that must be done while they "screen" you. One of the more annoying ones is not allowing any more then 3oz of any liquids and having to place all of them in a separate clear ziplock bag that must be removed from your luggage and go through screening separately. The thing about this is I kinda forgot to do this on my last trip, yet I was not caught for it.

Now why is that such a big deal you ask? Well the thing is I have been "caught" for carrying things in my luggage before that I was un-aware were not allowed or even there. And I have been delayed while my luggage was searched for said items. Yet I had traveled through other airports, and even the same one, with the item and not been stopped before. I am almost certain the reasons I did not get stopped before is simply because the agents that were "supposed" to be watching the luggage x-ray screens, were not. My reasons for thinking this are that on my last trip, while exiting the terminals past the screening checkpoints, I was clearly able to see the screens and agents for one of these stations. I stopped there for a moment because I noticed the agent was talking to a co-worker and not looking at the screen. I continued to watch as I took note that the agent never looked at the screen to see certain bags go by. Thus meaning someone "could" have had something meant to harm someone in their luggage, and this agent just let it go by because they never bothered to look.

The point I'm making here is that it's obvious these new restrictions do nothing more then unnecessarily delay passengers. They obviously don't catch restricted items all the time. And many times the restrictions are made "after" someone does something with an item that was not previously being checked.

Ultimately this all shows that the TSA is only being re-active, and only doing things to make the public "think" they are doing a good job, when in reality they aren't. Now I'm not saying that we should just do away with the TSA and let people take what ever they want on airplanes. What I am going to say is that I think the TSA is not doing the right things and that there are many things they could be doing that would increase security without causing delays. Such as taking a tip from casino's at how to monitor what is going on in the airport, rather then just focusing on what people bring in. Doing that would not only have prevented the recent closings of terminals, but also catch TSA agents that aren't doing their job properly.