Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Paper Phones 201

Posted by michael from the dog-ate-my-phone dept.
Fuzzy_Damnit! writes: "Whoa! Paper phone!" One of our shorter story write-ups... Anyway, since the reporter said he had a working prototype, it looks like the paper phone is not just paperware after all.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paper Phones More

Paper Phones

Comments Filter:

  • And there was stupid old me ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... thinking that the expensive bits of a phone were:

    1. DSP's
    2. LCD
    3. Batteries

    I looked at the patents for this thing, and have yet to figure out, why making the case from corrugated cardboard makes the phone cheap. All the environmentally nasty bits, NiMH batteries, Nematic liquid crystals, Silicon chips are still the same as those you get in regular phones.

    In fact this phone is probably environmentally worse, cos it means chopping down trees to make the damn things. That for me makes it an indisposable phone, unless I want to crap on the planet some more.

  • In the UK (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    we have cheap pay per minute cell phones. They start at about £20 - $30. Its called subsidy, and I'll bet my bottom dollar (or should I say pound ;-) that is the only way these cardboard phones could ever be made cheap. As a previous poster says, the expensive bits are just the same as a regular phone.

  • Re:And there was stupid old me ... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    DSPs are getting pretty cheap...although the model you cite may not be suitable for cell phones. However, the RF electronics are created using very expensive processes compared to CMOS, and may cost much more than the DSP itself. A good cell phone battery still runs in the several tens of dollars wholesale.

  • Re:Seems wasteful to me (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's flamebait because what is said is clearly stupid.

    paper is a non-renewable resource

    On what planet? On Earth the paper companies plant forests of trees which grow rapidly and produce wood pulp appropriate to the type of paper they want to manufacture. If that's not renewable, what is? Does Mr. McRotch actually believe that paper companies go around cutting down old-growth forests full of endangered species for the sake of being able to print the Sunday Edition?

    Mindless ranting about consumerism doesn't help either. People buy whatever is cheap and/or convenient. Unlike a lot of the trash in landfills, these phones are paper, which is biodegradable. As opposed to plastics which will still be in those landfills a thousand years from now as plastic.

    If all that doesn't make it flamebait, what does? Perhaps "Troll" would be a better label, but either one seems to describe the post reasonably well.

  • Re:Battery life anyone? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The batteries are made out of paper. The spring contact for the - terminal is made out of paper. The little bump on the + terminal? You got it -- paper.

  • Yeah but (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just think of all the paper cuts from dialing numbers. OUCH!

  • well shit (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In retaliation i'm going to make a book of out rj-11 telephone cable

  • Re:I liked the inventor's rationale... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Altschul, talking on her cell phone, lost her connection and became so angry that she wanted to heave the device out the window. She didn't because the phone was too expensive.

    Can we have paper laptops for the same, um, killer app?

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/disposable-cell-phone .htm?printable=1 [howstuffworks.com]

    Qoute:

    The disposable cell phone is just the first of more than 30 disposable electronic devices that Altschul says her company is preparing. In 2002, we may see disposable laptops

    Emphasis theirs.

  • Soon enough, from the looks of it [dtcproducts.com]..
  • <I>Now a shoe phone... thats a useful thing that I've yet to be able to buy. </I>

    Shouldn't that be second most useful thing?
  • no problem--build it into the paper of the cigarette. When it goes out, the conversation is over.

    :)
  • My GF has one of those pre-paid cell phone plans. It actually costs her -less- than a standard monthly plan would. Sure, the per-minute cost is higher, but she does not have to pay extra for license fees or 911 service, and she only pays for the minutes she uses.

    It all depends on your usage patterns.

  • <sarcasm> So what? It's not like the homeless matter to anybody. I mean, they're pathetic, mindless drunkards, right? </sarcasm>


    Rev. Dr. Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated, KSC, DEATH, SubGenius, mhm21x16

  • Re:Yes (Score:1)

    by mattdm ( 1931 )
    And what do you do when the vending machine is out of phones?

    --

  • A friend of mine used to work at a development place. These things use normal film. Also, they use two AA batteries which usually have plenty of charge left. She gave me a whole pile of good batteries out of these things. Better than throwing them away. Now, we need to find a use for the rest of these....(note...I dunno about these polaroid gadgets...)
  • Yup...she's also working on paper laptops. I have a feeling this will be a little more difficult....But I am sure Microsoft would love it!
  • Incredibly cheap e-books which will dissolve after the first reading. Hacking the book so it doesn't self destruct will be against the DMCA. Just what we need.
  • Chump. Everyone knows that 'Cracker' is a derogatory term for white people. And a 'Hacker' is someone who makes furniture with an axe.
  • Man, given the chance, I'd bean you with my cell phone at you right now. Hell, keep ranting, and I'll take a shot with my laptop. Do I get bonus points for throwing my pager and Pilot at you?
  • Claims that "the public" will behave any differently than stupidly and foolishly are foolish and hopeful. Look at the last several hundred years. Hell, look at France, which touched the whole idea off. The gave us a pinnicle of reasoning on the matter.

    -j

  • I think I saw one of these somewhere, not sure where.. I thought it was ugly as hell, not realing it was made of paper! This is a really great concept.. I will have to get one :) it seems that they do have some dimension though.. there is a ICB connected to a paper face and then plastic that holds it together. Infact, it seems ONLY the face is what is made of paper, but the plastic is recycable too. Don't know how recycable that circuit board is, but oh well ;)

  • I heard about this on the radio about two weeks ago. So much for that ``Internet Time'' concept. Either that or the backlog of submissions at Slashdot must be monumental.

    I first thought what a stupid idea. Paper phone. Who'd buy one? But then I thought: What a great idea for drug dealers and terrorists! Buy a paper phone at the corner 7-11, negotiate your deal over the paper phone, and toss it in the trash when you're done. ``Sir, we completed the trace on that phone call. It came from a trash can on the corner of 1st and Main.''

    Nah, I guess I still think it's a stupid idea. (Which probably means it'll sell like hotcakes.) I wonder if the inventor has put any thought into the litter problem. It's bad enought seeing McDonald's wrapper blowing down the streets of the city. Now we'll see paper cell phones in the gutter. :-)



    --

  • I expect that it will be less damaging in the long run, whether the woman who came up with the idea pushes for it or not. (And she just might, simply because of pressure from people sharing your view of the paper phone as an ecological disaster waiting to happen.) Why do I believe this? Because, if a biodegradable ink can be developed (which the current ink may already be), then the battery becomes the only source of hazardous waste in the device. Everything else is, essentially, just newspaper.

    Now if we can just come up with a way to make cheap paper batteries, too...

    (Yes, I know that paper can also be a problem. But it's not half as bad as the sorts of things you find on the average circuit board.)

  • Two, the pay phone may have questionable cleanliness. How many times have you talked on a pay phone with a tissue in your hand and the phone away from your ear?
    Niles? Niles? Is that you?

    Seriously, I didn't know that there were people who actually did thing like wipe off phones before they use them. It must be a pain feeling compelled to do things like that. What do you expect would be on the end of the phone? Its not like you actually put the phone in your mouth (I hope).

    --

  • Claims that the majority of the public are stupid is foolish and elitist. Most people simply have been conditioned by society, their parents, and the government to be docile, cowardly, and sheep-like. They are rewarded for conformity and punished for extravagent behavior.
  • 1. Yes. It was obviously nothing but a haven for piracy. Any legal use was negligible.

    2. No, AOL is a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes. Additionally, allowing a child molester into a chat room is not illegal.

    3. No, the phone company offers a general service, the majority of which is used for legal purposes.

    4. No, Einstein's work advanced science in a completely ethical way.

    This product, however, is a piece of junk designed to fill our planet with litter.
  • Payphones and disposable phonecards are already ubiquitous. A disposable cellphone might add something in convenience, but why would you bother?

    Everyone who wants a cellphone pretty much already has one. A disposable cellphone isn't any cheaper -- in fact, it's more expensive per unit, just as phonecards are more expensive per minute than good home long-distance plans. You're paying for the convenience.

    So anyone who doesn't already own a cellphone because of the expense isn't going to be able to afford this any better. So, they'll have to be selling to people based on its convenience. That means tourists and criminals, and I'm not sure which one is worse.
  • "he's not answering. Send another phone out his printer!"
  • A dead person would not lose a battle of wits with a small plastic soap dish. Ergo, those who would, are dumnber than dead . . .
  • >You say "egalitarian agenda" as if it were a bad thing. Do you
    >disagree with the second paragraph of the [23]United States
    >Declaration of Independence?


    Of course not, and that's a read herring. Equality at creation and a level playing field do not suggest that equal outcomes are likely. "Egalitarian agenda" is a bad thing when it is to be brought about by pulling down the high (the lobster effect) rather than bringing up the low.


    >First of all, you're basing your argument about "average intelligence"
    >on anecdotal evidence from your own life and your brother's life.


    I do have a very large sample, enough to go beyond merely anecdotal. If I were to resort to anecdotes, the intelligence drops far lower :)


    >Unless your brother teaches statistics, I don't see how his opinion is
    >relevant.

    He doesn't, but I do. I also have a doctorate in statistics . . . A sample of several hundred is overkill for estimating the population mean.



    >I also don't understand the importance of open-door Catholic
    >schools to your point, since the average American isn't Catholic and
    >doesn't want a Catholic education.


    It has nothing to do with Catholicsm. Typically, when the results of Catholic schools are brought up, there is a stock response about their selectivity. However, the nonselective Catholic schools also show better results than the public schools, but we're getting into side issues here. The level of performance in either type of Catholic school, as a group, is above the population mean. The level of a four year college graduate is significantly above the mean. The point is that with experience coming from being in those environments, one is exposed to a biased sample, which will cause overestimation of "average" capabilities. "Typical" abilities in any of these three groups is above "Average."


    >You might also want to brush up on
    >the First Amendment of the[24] United States Bill of Rights if you do
    >indeed believe that private schools are the answer to raising
    >intelligence.


    Huh??? I'm an attorney and a civil libertarian, quite familiar with the Bill of Rights and its predecessors, both as to legal issues and philosophy. I still don't see what you're getting at.



    >I am basing my argument on a social constructionist point of view.
    >That is to say, people are mostly the product of their environment.
    >Therefore, if the average student in your brother's classes aren't up
    >to his standard of intelligence, then something about their
    >surroundings is amiss.

    That's entirely possible. They had many years of surroundings before getting to him. The point is that from his background, his standards and expertations were unrealistically high.



    >In my earlier post, I hypothesized that cynical
    >teachers contribute to an anti-learning environment.

    I have no doubt that they do. I spent a year at a University in which the entire student culture was hostile to learning. The professors had caved in, and the idea of a test was for the students to receive a summary a couple of days before that eliminated most of the material, and regurgitate it on a multiple choice test. Once that happens, you get a tacit conspiracy whereing the students and faculty exchange high grades and low expectations for high teaching evaluations, and anyone who tries to buck this gets burned. I knew within two weeks that I wouldn't be applying for the permanent position . . .


    My brother wasn't cynical before he started, but after two years he left for law school. I was still an idealist when I started practicing, and it damned near killed me.

    > In fact, a quick
    >google search turned up [25]this study, which confirms that teachers'
    >expectations do affect student learning.

  • many prisons already use paper slippers . . . :)
  • > Imagine something like
    > this being so cheap that the only barrier to entry in an
    > information-based economy is intelligence?


    I am suddenly reminded of a conversation with my brother several years ago. I was a law student; he taught in a public high school. After something I said about "average intelligence", he told me that my notion of average intelligence was *far* too high, and biased by having attended private schools.


    5 years of practicing law showed me that not only was he right about *my* notion, but that *his* concept of average intelligence was far too high, too :)


    If intelligence remains a barrier, most people will still be left out. Remember, there's no lower limit to human intelligence . . .


    hawk


  • >So, basically, you're saying that rich people are more intelligent
    >than people who can't afford private school.


    No, and that's a rather ignorant response. My family is hard-core
    middle class, and my grandparents are born dirt-poor. It's not
    that we could afford Catholic schools, it's that we gave up other things
    to do it. Additionally, while there are Catholic schools that take all-comers
    (take the Archbishops's of New York's standing offer to take the
    bottom 5% from the city's school system), my high school, and all
    colleges, *are* selective.



    >Did it ever occur to you
    >that maybe the reason that the world is full of dumbasses is because
    >teachers like your brother have no expectation of intelligence from
    >their students?



    Your ignorance is showing. You *clearly* have no idea what my brother
    did or didn't do, and apparently don't understand what happens when
    eithe rhigh school teachers or college professors actually expect
    people to learn.


    >Did it occur to you that the clients sent to a law
    >_student_ probably couldn't afford private school?



    and what does that have to do with anything??? I wasn't talking
    about clients as a law student, but of what I expected of people
    in general at the time. It was after 5 years of practice (read the
    post) with paying clients that I said I found his view optimistic.


    Your eagerness to promote your egalitarian agenda is getting in the way of reading what was actually written.


    hawk

  • > Imagine how many
    > millions of acres of forests are destroyed each year so the you
    > Americans can have disposable paper plates and Dixie cups.

    pretty close to, ahh, 0. Yes, two less than two.


    I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but essentially all of our paper is grown on renewable tree farms. But don't let the facts get in the way of a hateful an ignorant rant.


    hawk

  • yes, it is tough to tell if it's a troll or flamebait. But one minor nit:


    Paper doesn't degrade in landfills. The breakdown is an aerobic process, and the landfills generally don't have the aeriation needed to do this (in fact, I doubt it's possbile). So exposed paper will rot, but buried paper will generally stay paper.


    WHile I'm at it, I've lost the reference, but if you compare the production of a paper cup and a comparable styrofoam cup, it takes/uses 2-20 times as much resources/pollutant to produce the paper cup. Nonetheless, the luddites run around screaming about biodegradability, and get McDonalds and the like to irresponsibly switch from foam to paper . . .


    hawk

  • doesn't mean you *have* to write phone numbers on it :)
  • This woman came up with a very cleaver Idea and is bringing it to market. The perverbial better mousetrap. And even though I have a cell phone for $10 I probably would buy one for cool value.

    I wish her well its a very cleaver idea that will probably get used in a lot of ways that no one ever figured on.
  • Only really an issue when the antenna is beaming energy directly next to your brain. In this case, this isn't held up to your ear, like a typical cancer phone.. :-)

    One of the biggest reason I use one of those little bud earphone/mics on mine whenever I can..
  • And I have trouble finding a 35 cents when I reall yneed to use a pay phone. Now I'm supposed to fork out 10$? :-)

    Provide cheap access to wireless? Yes.. Replace pay phones? *BBWAHHAHA*
  • NOW THAT would simply ROCK!
  • Paper can be recycled. I'd say using paper probrably saved more trees then using plastic..

    As long as they're replanted, etc.. :-)
  • To high on the cool vs cost graph.. :-) Besides, the phones at least function as they should, just as any other cell would. A Yugo, on the other hand, shouldn't travel over 35 miles per hour.. :-)
  • After searching for 1 minute on the internet...

    - $4.96 DSP [findarticles.com] (and this is a way overkill in performance)

    - $2.60 battery [cdromshop.com]

    And there's no LCD in this phone...

    I imagine a purchasing agent could do a bit better if they spent some more time...

    This just goes to show how much people pay for distribution and advertizing...

  • As for the DSP, the Lucent DSP1609 was specifically designed for cell phone applications.

    For the RF front-end for cell phones, fujitsu [internetwire.com] makes one for $2...

    You can even put in the RF discretes in a
    package [green-tape.com]...

    Cell phone batteries are made to be rechargable which isn't necessarily the case here...
    A cell phone draws about 200 milliwatts when running which isn't very much. The watt density
    of a watch battery is good enough to power a disposable cell phone for quite a while...

    If you do the research, it's amazing how little presumably expensive things cost in volume.
    Retail and wholesale finished goods carry substantial markups from unfinished goods...

    I know it's pretty depressing to see that you paid really good money for your plastic cell phone made by erikson, nokia, qualcomm, motorola, samsung, etc., but really, that stuff doesn't cost much at all...
    You are just buying the name!

  • And yet, at the same time, this paper technology will probably help bring formerly expensive technological things like cell phones, laptops, and other personal devices to lower and lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Combine this with e-Ink tech on the horizon, and you could have extremely cheap textbooks. Imagine something like this being so cheap that the only barrier to entry in an information-based economy is intelligence? When all the tools and means of production are made of paper and special ink, and cost next to nothing, it's kinda hard to make it any more open.

    Now, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking, I know, but it's as pie-in-the-sky as you are cynical. The reality will be somewhere in-between.

  • Then what's with the LA Times? Guess no one there listens to NPR.

    I guess I really can't slam 'em too hard, though. I've heard things on the radio or seen them on the 'net before they made it into the Chicago Tribune. I've gotten so used to getting most of my news on the internet that it's getting harder to understand the delays in seeing something in print. And the newpapers' web sites are usually nothing more than electronic versions of the same stories appearing in the daily print edition. I suppose if CNN was available in hard copy form it'd be last week's news too.



    --

  • A tree farm is not a forest, anymore than a field of wheat is a meadow. (Though US paper companies love it when they can treat what's left of actual forests in supposedly-protected national parks as if they were tree farms.)

    Trees could be a renewable resource, but as the industry currently functions, they aren't.

    Switching to hemp would be even better for lots of reasons, but given the hysterical War On (Some) Drugs, that probably won't happen real soon.

  • Well, the thing is, pay phones are on the way out anyway. According to a recent article in Wired News, 30% of people in the US no use cellphones...and in many cases, it will be cheaper or more convenient for these people to use those than to use a pay phone. Which means fewer calls on pay phones now [wral-tv.com], which makes less money for the phone companies--many pay phones are now or will soon be no longer even paying for their own upkeep.

    Even without the paper cellphone, the regular cellpone has been biting into pay phones' revenues. With the advent of this new disposable, which will put cell calling within reach of even those people who don't want to spend all that money on a calling plan . . . well, you do the math.
    --

  • I think Einstein said that he believed only two things were infinite--the universe, and human stupidity--and he wasn't sure about the first one. :)
    --
  • I don't know about that. My parents don't have a cellphone because they don't feel they can afford one, and wouldn't use it all that much anyway. On the other hand, they're both avid horseback riders, and horseback riding does carry with it the risk of physical injury. I could see them picking up one of these phones to stick in a saddlebag for just in case of emergencies, or to put in the glovebox of their car for a long trip. And I could see a lot of other people doing the same thing.

    Yes, sure, there will be more trash. But on the other hand, this brings the option of on-the-spot emergency help to people who could never have afforded it before. It'll save lives. Aren't a few lives saved worth a little more trash?
    --

  • ...or you dial a number and buy more time.

    We already live in a disposable society. Would you take a cell phone to get fixed? Most likely it would cost more to fix than to replace, so you would chuck it and buy a new one. Now if this phone is several ounces of plastic and metal vs. a smaller amount of paper and plastic (and possibly less metal), you are now throwing away much less.

    It's not a perfect solution, but it could be better than what we have now.
  • Sorry, dear. I couldn't call you: My dog ate my phone!

  • so how many Slashdotters have voted for 'Binary tree', or 'B-tree' so far?
  • ** RANT WARNING **

    *sigh* As americans about the last thing we need is more disposable cheap devices to feed our pointless consumer culture. Since the whole post-war lack of shortages, we have been trying our absolute hardest to bury ourselves in garbage. So you say they could be made recycleable? Well, look around you. NOBODY except a couple of granola hippies EVER buys things made with a significant amount of post-consumer recycled content, unless it's a novelty like those unsightly "indestructible" park benches that the bloody fucking new york state highway department put in a couple of their rest areas as a publicity stunt.
    Not to get off topic or anything, but it's just depressing to see how people are encouraging this sort of thing. I think the whole thing is a tremendous waste of time.
  • If you go to staples or any other similar place, you can sign up for prepaid cell service under any sort of false name. If you use a different phone than your normal phone, or if you just buy a really cheap phone for each time you sign up, you're golden.
    Why do i know this? 'cause an old friend of mine worked at staples for a couple years, and he said that more than 25% of the people who came in for prepaid cell-phones were _really_ sketchy characters. Many paid in cash and even went so far as to wear dark glasses!
  • Just ban filter-tips. Real cigarettes (e.g. Gauloises, St. Michel) taste better sans filter anyway. And all they leave behind is a bit of paper and a bit of leaf. Much nicer to the environment.
  • As someone above already pointed out, it's PAPER. So, when you're done with it, you use it to start a fire. Security hole closed. :)

    Hmm.... I wonder if that works for Windows.... Time to go find my old CD-ROMs, and some lighter fluid.
  • Sorry. That does suck losing a phone like that. However, from the experience of my friends and family (I'm the only guy I know who doesn't have a cell phone) I'd say that the average cell phone user would produce less waste with a normal cell phone than with the disposables.

    It also doesn't change the fact that it is an idea created by a woman who apparently doesn't give a damn about the consequences of her actions to other. She was driving with a cell phone, was willing to throw it out the window if it didn't cost to much, and has shrugged off complaints about the idea by essentially saying that that is how society works so she might as well take advantage of it.

    That's an unethical inventor.
  • I hope you're right. I hope something good will come of all this. On the other hand, I don't think this will lead to any change in the total cost of the service. Even if the cost of the cell phone goes down, it'll probably cost just as much to use the service as it does now for a regular phone.

    While this may make cheaper laptops one day available, current paper/ink & plastic circuitry technology doesn't perform anywhere near as well as regular methods. I think the days of a printed paper x86-class-of-complexity chip is a little ways off. By that time, who knows how much traditional technologies will cost? Heck, by then, Moore's Law may have stalled and price may be the only means of competition left.

    It's a good thought, and I hope you're right. It's just the carelessness of the inventor that got me so angry. I certainly don't think she'll be instrumental in seeing these positive applications. Maybe something good can be built on the foundation she laid for herself.
  • Why are you throwing away the regular cell phone every 2 years? They last for much longer than that.

    I'm pretty sure that the paper ones will generate far more trash. They, by default, only last 60 minutes. I don't know if they are rechargeable or if they have a replaceable battery, but it doesn't look like it does from the picture. They suggest that you'll be able to push a button to get more time, but I somehow doubt that the battery will be good enough for 3 months.

    3 months isn't the intent of the design. It's intended, really, to be used for the 60 minutes and tossed away. For some people, that might be 3 months, but from what I've observed of most cell phone users, I suspect it will be far less time than that -- maybe a week or so.

    When they become entirely ink on paper, maybe they'll be recycleable, but I somehow doubt it. That's not the intention. Remember, this is the invention of a woman who would've thrown her cell phone out the window and forgotten about it if it wasn't so expensive. When the average person hears about these things, they're excited by the idea of being able to use and dispose of it so easily. The ramifications of this don't really dent that enthusiasm. The average person, which this woman is in many ways, doesn't really understand nor care about the impact of garbage on the future.

    I'm sure this will generate far more garbage, and I don't really think that it will be less damaging in the long run. Maybe I'm just cynical. I prefer to call it experienced.
  • I was reading comments about the paper phone, and the ad banner at the top of /. was the following:

    Vote for America's National Tree: arborday.org

    Isn't it a bit ironic that a technology using paper would have a "save a tree" ad at the top of the page?

  • If paper phones like this start to become more and more popular, I would think that talking on the phone while smoking would become less and less common. I mean, how much would it suck to have your phone burst into flames whilst you were talking on it? =)

    ------------
    CitizenC
  • I think they expect you'll just buy one at the Kwik-E-Mart.

    I can't say I'm a fan of disposability, but this is a huge boon for frequent travellers. God, to think of the amount of different country's calling cards I had to use while travelling through Europe to get in touch with friends and family -- to be able to buy a disposable cell would have been great.
  • Should Einstein be held responsible for the development of the A-bomb?

    I assume that you are referring to E=MC^2. No, Einstein should not be held responsible for the development of the A-bomb because he showed the equivalence of matter and energy.

    HOWEVER, Einstein did write a letter to FDR, urging that the US engage on an A-Bomb program to get it before the Nazis did. Therefore, yes he should held responsible for the development of the A-bomb.
  • That means tourists and criminals, and I'm not sure which one is worse.

    You forgot one more important group. Those with bad credit. Granted they are probably the prople who can least afford to pay for convenience, but when has that stopped anyone from taking advantage of them. I suspect that there are lots of people who would like the convenience of a cell phone but can't get a contract. There must be someone who buys into those prepaid cell phone plans that are avaliable now and it certianly isn't anyone who's got any sense about money.
    _____________


  • >Remember, there's no lower limit to human
    >intelligence . . .

    Prove this statement.

    www.darwinawards.com [darwinawards.com]
  • Getting in a bit late, but...

    True, but she could always not produce an abusable product.

    Ain't no such thing. Anything can be used as a weapon, for example. Any non-biodegradable product can be smashed and turned into so much litter that lasts until it's cleaned up - and biodegradable products are necessarily disposable products. Et cetera.
  • >>paper is a non-renewable resource

    ???????? Paper is made from wood. Wood comes from trees. Trees come from seeds that they make themselves(don't get all technical on pollination issues please).

    Some areas actually have more trees than they did 500 years ago. Connecticut does, learned that bit in boy scouts. Go to vermont, there are plenty of young trees on my familys property and on nearby land that are replacing the old. Paper is a self renewing resource. Greater use of paper will require more careful management of forests, but can be done indefinitely.
  • There's a lower limit. It's called being dead.
    ----
  • Ah, the incredible selfishness of people.

    When I was a student in the UK, I used to temp for summer jobs. One of those jobs was to walk down the side of a motorway, picking up litter (we don't get our crims to do it for us). I was getting paid next to nothing but I calculated that at the rate I was picking them up, discarded cigarette butts (they don't biodegrade, they contain glass you know) was costing 1-2p (1.5-3c) per butt in my wages and since I was being paid through an agency, that's 2-4p (3-6c). I would imagine that when you get your crims to do it, they get paid even more than I was. And there were a *lot* of cigarette butts.

    Think of that next time you complain about paying taxes.

    Oh, not to mention making the countryside look fucking disgusting and ugly.

    (Assholes)

    Rich

  • What do you expect would be on the end of the phone? Its not like you actually put the phone in your mouth (I hope).

    I don't know, some people are seriously sick (kinda like the same mentality that keep posting the goatse pic) when they vandalize those phones (bodily fluids/excretions/vomit). I mean it can get pretty bad.

  • I expect that it will be less damaging in the long run, whether the woman who came up with the idea pushes for it or not. (And she just might, simply because of pressure from people sharing your view of the paper phone as an ecological disaster waiting to happen.)

    I prefer to think that some rudimentary intelligence will kick in on her part. If the cost of producing the phone is more than the cost of a prepaid address label, she should be making it easy for people to send them back for refurbishing when they're used up. If she's working with companies using these for promotional items, returning it can be good for a free something or other (and the company providing the something or other gets an address.) There's good economic reason to re-use things, with the added bonus of not being part of the problem.

    And in terms of the long term good/bad of these, I don't think thats really relevant to the fact that the woman's additude sucks. She didn't respond to the criticisms by finding out what the costs were and weren't, she just said "who cares?". That additude, as much as the reality of long term damage possiblities is what turned me off to her - that she doesn't even care enough to look for a good answer to the question.

    Kahuna Burger

  • So much for the paperless office.
  • There are times when I need a phone and I don't want to use the pay phones at hand. One, it may be in an unsafe location. It could be poorly lit at night in a rough part of town. Two, the pay phone may have questionable cleanliness. How many times have you talked on a pay phone with a tissue in your hand and the phone away from your ear?
  • In the US, we don't have real phone cards. We also don't have smart credit/debit cards. And we don't have those cute little config/account cards that you can move between cell phones when you buy a new one, or go to a place where your old cell doesn't work -- which is ironic, considering that North America is the only place without uniform cell protocols.

    WE ARE FACED WITH A CARD GAP [pbs.org]!!!

    __________________

  • Or..What if the ink runs.
  • I wasn't think about security, I was thinking about having to enter them all over again.

  • What I'd like to know is who's going to throw away a phone that has all their phone numbers stored in it.

  • Or he'll use it as a chew toy.
  • I'm not throwing it away - I'm losing it! I'm on my third phone - the previous one was lost in a cab, and the previous to that was analog and is now a useless brick in a cardboard box. Average lifetime (Of course I want to keep it longer than that! Hopefully the current one will last a few more years.)
  • Well, if I throw away (or lose in a cab) one cellphone with a big-ass battery, a large cardboard box, lots of cellophane, and 24 thick phone bills every two years - or one prepaid paper phone every three months - which one generates more trash?

    I know which one pisses off those angry about our Disposable Society (tm), but that's not the relevant question.

  • As the sole person responsible for bringing this product to society (and only that - it seems a team of engineers were responsible for design and implementation), she has a responsibility (as clearly society does) to make sure her invention is used in a proper manner.

    So what you're saying is, you want someone else to control what you can and cannot do; what you can and cannot have?

    Besides, as George Carlin once said:

    "If it's true, that plastic does not break down, then the earth will just create a new paradigm: The Earth + Plastic."

    (paraphrased)
  • This is exactly what I need. I don't want a cell phone, because I don't want people calling me when I'm not by a phone (hell, I rarely answer the phone when I am by it), but I want to have a phone for emergency use. Can't wait 'till I can get my hands on one of these puppies.
  • According to the pictures in the article, this particular phone doesn't have an LCD. That's certainly an optional piece of technology for a phone, so it makes sense to leave it out if the goal is to make a phone as small, lightweight and cheap as possible. In fact, it cuts down somewhat on the energy requirements as well, allowing for the use of smaller batteries.
  • Perhaps Not. This is a paper phone. It contains virtually no plastics, requires no mold forming, and large portions of it are probably biodegradable and / or recyclable. If you want to make an environmental judgement of the phones impact, you have to evaluate the phones lifetime, and the harmfullness of the manufacturing process. I don't know enough about how the phone is constructed to say for sure, but it is entirely possible that the process is far greener than current cellphone technology. Additionally, speaking as someone who loses cellphones at an embarrassing rate, this is like a dream come true. Is it less environmentally responsible to lose / toss a paper phone, or one composed of plastics, IC chips, and a bulky chemical laden battery? I have problems with disposable society as well, but this needs to be avaluated properly before jumping to conclusions.

  • Re:A worrying turn of phrase... (Score:3)

    by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:43AM (#373964) Homepage Journal
    She can't control how her product is used.

    Should Napster be responsible for whether or not its clients use the service to trade copyrighted material?

    Better yet, should AOL be responsible for allowing a child molester in a kiddy chat room?

    Should the phone company be responsible for carrying your insider trading calls?

    Should Einstein be held responsible for the development of the A-bomb?

    As with any technology, the respsonsibility for its misuse lies solely with the person who misuses it. Of course, this includes the inventor, but only in relation to him- or herself.

  • Re:Yes (Score:3)

    by PhatKat ( 78180 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @11:07AM (#373965) Homepage
    Call the vending machine restocker.

    Oh wait...

  • I can see it now.... (Score:3)

    by vex24 ( 126288 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @07:56AM (#373966) Homepage
    AOL gives away free disposable phones! Only catch - they call you twice a day to try to get you to subscribe to AOL, and of course, the phones are hard-coded to dial only 800 numbers.

    (Hack available at sourceforge :P )

  • Yes! (Score:3)

    by Nidhogg ( 161640 ) <shr...thanatos@@@gmail...com> on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:03AM (#373967) Journal
    Just what I need. A whole new way to hang up on people.

    "Hold on just a second. I have to get something from my pocket."
    *flick* *flick*
    *crackle*
    "Burn baby burn!"

  • Yes (Score:3)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @09:53AM (#373968) Homepage Journal
    Pay phones will be replaced by phone vending machines.

    Hey, is it recyclable?

    __________________

  • Re:Hemp fiber paper (Score:3)

    by Ian Wolf ( 171633 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:11AM (#373969) Homepage
    Now you too can have an all new Smokia 2000! The phone that makes you feel just fine.

  • A worrying turn of phrase... (Score:3)

    by Gingko ( 195226 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:08AM (#373970)
    One quote disturbs me philosphically:

    "I can't change what society is. We are a disposable society. Life is what it is."

    I was reading one of Feynamann's "Meaning of It All" Lectures last night (specifically Uncertainty in Science). There, he talks about what, if any, the responsibility of the scientist (engineer, whatever) is to society in bringing to bear the applications of an idea. He said that each scientific idea presented the "keys to the gates of heaven, and of hell" (paraphrasing). While it would be foolish to pass up the opportunites of a key to heaven, it would be unwise to not consider the possibility of hell.

    While of course, heaven and hell are exaggerations here, the principle holds. I sincerely hope this woman has not passed the buck of responsibility for potential wastefulness to society as a whole. As the sole person responsible for bringing this product to society (and only that - it seems a team of engineers were responsible for design and implementation), she has a responsibility (as clearly society does) to make sure her invention is used in a proper manner.

    Henry

  • Ingenious... (Score:3)

    by cribcage ( 205308 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:02AM (#373971) Homepage Journal
    What a fantastic way to combine two of Americans' favorite driving activities: talking on cellphones, and littering.

    It's about time we gave morons something besides their cigarette butts to throw out the window.

    crib

  • How small is usable? (Score:3)

    by edgrale ( 216858 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:16AM (#373972)
    You all have probably seen a Nokia 8850, 3310 or a 6110 (might have different names in the US). Now my question is, how small is usable? Or rather, how thin? As we all know there are people with bad eyesight, "fat" fingers and not to mention old people. I don't mean to troll now, so please don't flame me, I'm just trying to point out that we ought to stop for a minute, and think how small we should make them. Old people are bound to have problems if (cell) phones are going to be too thin/small. Some even say that the 3310 is too small for them.

    Not to mention that they are easy to missplace...
    But on the other hand, small can be good also :)

    Just my 2 cents

  • Secret Service (Score:3)

    by deran9ed ( 300694 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @08:17AM (#373973) Homepage

    This amazing piece of technology, which I tested while huddled against the elements at a train station in New Jersey, is made largely of paper.
    Secret Service officials have asked to see this phone recently, I think the article was on Cryptome.org or something similar. Odd that such high ranking government officials would want to see this. See way I figure, if its used in the commission of a crime, there's no trace back to the cellular, nor is there a way for them to monitor a conversation. So expect some sort of fallout between government and the inventor.
    As a result, it's incredibly cheap. You'll be able to buy one for maybe 10 bucks, and it will come with 60 minutes of air time. When that time runs out, you can throw it away, or just punch a button to add another 60 minutes of time.
    It is a nifty idea by all means, but again law enforcement will see this as a problem as they may not be able to use ECHELON [echeclonwatch.org] based programs to monitor whats going on, thereby leaving another means of circumvention of laws by criminals.
    Basically, this is a calling card with a telephone built in. And the technological advances it's based on--22 patents have been awarded to its developers--are going to have a dramatic impact on many things we take for granted.
    ? I disagree with this, how is taking a cellular phone for granted, its not a neccessity in life, and although we use it in every day life, we've been fine without it in the past, so I see this statement as overkill.
    The phone, conceived by Randice-Lisa Altschul, relies on a technique that allows a standard electronic circuit to be literally printed on material using magnetic ink.
    So a binary reader may be able to gain information on the innards of this phone, giving people the ability to tinker with it some. Well leave it up to the next Defcon [defcon.org], or other Con where someone will figure out the workings on this, then we can guess government won't like this idea too much.
    she's already got worldwide orders for 100 million of the devices and three factories standing by as soon as she receives approval for the device from the Federal Communications Commission. It's a fairly routine assessment guaranteeing things such as the device won't unduly interfere with other technology.
    I think she has more to worry about than the FCC when its concerning this type of product, again I wish I could find that article, so people can see what I mean.
    For instance, these phones are pretty much untraceable, like a call from a pay phone. That's great if you're concerned about privacy but bad if you're worried that bad guys will use stuff such as this to make it harder for law enforcement to catch them.
    Well there's small mention of law enforcement here, but again I will search for the prior article on the Secret Service's concern over these phones, and its not like its the FBI or something, these guys (Secret Service) don't normally get involved with these issues, which made me think about, what exactly is going to happen when these phones (if these phones) are released.

    Patent Pending [speedygrl.com]
  • So anyone who doesn't already own a cellphone because of the expense isn't going to be able to afford this any better. So, they'll have to be selling to people based on its convenience. That means tourists and criminals, and I'm not sure which one is worse

    or people like me. I don't have a cel phone because its way too much money for the amount of time I spend on the phone, and the devices are way too big for the low frequency I would use it. If you told me I could buy a phone to put in my wallet and forget about until I needed it, as long as it wasn't ridiculously expensive I'd buy it.

    As it is if you want a small phone to carry with you you'll have to spend a couple hundred bucks to get something tiny enough to be convenient, and then pay monthly charges (with a contract!) for the privlege. The current disposable/no-contract plans don't have phones that are at all convenient in size.

    And there are plenty of times when i would have liked to have a phone for say, a week. For ten bucks, this is perfect for many of the people on earth who DON'T feel compelled to be available 24 hours a day, but would stil like the occassional convenience.

    The biggest probelem cel companies have right now is that everyone who is obsessively on the phone already has one -- they have to make it much more convenient for the REST of us if they want to grow their customer base at all...

    ---------------------------------------------

  • end of pay phones?!? (Score:5)

    by mattdm ( 1931 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @07:58AM (#373975) Homepage
    The reporter claims that this will "probably mean the end of pay phones". Yeesh, I hope not -- pay phones are wonderful for when you forget to bring your phone. Unless these things come with magic pills for ending absent-mindedness, I hope the good old quarter-eating things stay around for a good long time.

    --

  • Useless (Score:5)

    by Aggrazel ( 13616 ) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Friday March 09, 2001 @07:54AM (#373976) Journal
    Who wants a paper phone anyway?

    Now a shoe phone... thats a useful thing that I've yet to be able to buy.

    Please some slashdot user point me to where I can buy a shoe phone, I really want one. Just so I can do this one:

    "Would you please hold? I have a call on my other shoe." - Maxwell Smart

  • I liked the inventor's rationale... (Score:5)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @07:58AM (#373977) Journal
    Altschul, talking on her cell phone, lost her connection and became so angry that she wanted to heave the device out the window. She didn't because the phone was too expensive.

    Can we have paper laptops for the same, um, killer app?

  • For More Info... (Score:5)

    by DetritusX ( 319569 ) on Friday March 09, 2001 @07:54AM (#373978)
    There's an interesting (and simple) explanation of the technology behind this at HowStuffWorks.com [howstuffworks.com]:
    http://www.howstuffworks.com/disposable-cell-phone .htm [howstuffworks.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close