Alex Santoso's Comments

From our pal Boing Boing:
Phil Belanger, a founding member of the Wi-Fi Alliance who presided over the selection of the name "Wi-Fi" writes:
Wi-Fi doesn't stand for anything.

It is not an acronym. There is no meaning. [...]

The only reason that you hear anything about "Wireless Fidelity" is some of my colleagues in the group were afraid. They didn't understand branding or marketing. They could not imagine using the name "Wi-Fi" without having some sort of literal explanation. So we compromised and agreed to include the tag line "The Standard for Wireless Fidelity" along with the name. This was a mistake and only served to confuse people and dilute the brand. For the first year or so( circa 2000) , this would appear in all of our communications. I still have a hat and a couple of golf shirts with the tag line. Later, when Wi-Fi was becoming more successful and we got some marketing and business people from larger companies on the board, the alliance dropped the tag-line.

This tag line was invented after the fact. After we chose the name Wi-Fi from a list of 10 names that Interbrand proposed. The tag line was invented by the initial six member board and it does not mean anything either. If you decompose the tag line, it falls apart very quickly. "The Standard"? The Wi-Fi Alliance has always been very careful to stay out of inventing standards. The standard of interest is IEEE 802.11. The Wi-Fi Alliance focuses on interoperability certification and branding. It does not invent standards. It does not compete with IEEE. It complements their efforts. So Wi-Fi could never be a standard. And "Wireless Fidelity" - what does that mean? Nothing. It was a clumsy attempt to come up with two words that matched Wi and Fi. That's it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
That's an interesting article - it mentioned that federal law barred such advertisements for satellites launched using US-based spacecrafts. But ultimately, who owns space? What's to prevent someone from another country from launching such satellites?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I wonder if this is prevalent in Asia or whether it's a Western concept - I can't remember a version of "cooties" while growing up as a kid in Indonesia.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Rathje & Murphy, 1992. Rubbish!: The Archaeology of Garbage

This is actually quite an interesting and surprising study. Dr Rathje excavated a landfill in Tucson, Arizona, and discovered that newspaper - which supposed to degrade quite quickly (estimated to be around 5 months) - actually hardly degrade at all in a landfill. He found newspapers from over 50 years that were still "as fresh and as readable the day they were issued."

One big issue with paper bag is actually that it's quite water-intensive to produce. Making one paper bag uses a LOT of water - about 20 times that used to make a plastic bag.

I'm not ragging on the decision of may cities to discourage the usage of single-use plastic bag. It's just that some things which appears very simple on the surface can actually have surprising costs when one delve into it. Nothing is as simple as it seems.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Page 1 of 801       next | last

Profile for Alex Santoso

  • Member Since 2012/07/17


Blog Posts

  • Posts Written 22,184
  • Comments Received 162,077
  • Post Views 48,342,756
  • Unique Visitors 36,955,372
  • Likes Received 13,995


  • Threads Started 8,786
  • Replies Posted 3,395
  • Likes Received 2,346

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More