Apparently T610 can't be used as tv remote but.....

>"Scott" <scottyboyfun@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:f6_lb.519$yF3.78@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>> Apparently java programs can't be used to control the IR port of the T610
>> because java isn't capable of controlling the IR port.
>>
>> What it we was to connect an ir led to the bottom connector of the phone
>> scomehow, could java control it then?
>>
>> I obviously don't mean connect it straight to it, but u know what im
>getting
>> at!
>>
>> I really would like 2 have a tv remote prog 4 my phone!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> What do u all think?

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:31:10 +1000, "Daniel Juhn"
<j.u.h.n.remove.the.periods@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>go get a clue.
>java is programmed into the t610 "sandbox" style. thats why you cant access
>the IR layer. it is outside the sandbox. similarly, other phone functions
>such as inbox etc., let alone homemade hardware components.

Yeah. Useful post. Get a clue yourself and be a bit more forward
thinking.

There's nothing stopping a Java applet sending out DTMF tones (or
equivalent) which could be picked up by a device and sent out as IR
signals.

Rather than giving negative comments such as "I've heard the term
sandbox and that puts me in a position to piss on you from on high,"
why don't you do something useful like post links which actually
explain the limitations of Java on the T610?

Start here:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/develope...ava/p_java.jsp

Good luck!

Thanks for the positive reply! and the negative reply, well, I know what we
all think of that, so no need to really say anything.

I was just putting in my cent, maybe it could inspire someone who knows
about these things and make a difference.


That dtmf idea didnt sound bad, I'll look at the link now!

Thanks

Scott
"realShady" <not@for.you> wrote in message
news:6ndipv08todhri9jo2jm5497fca2av05tm@4ax.com...
> >"Scott" <scottyboyfun@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:f6_lb.519$yF3.78@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >> Apparently java programs can't be used to control the IR port of the
T610
> >> because java isn't capable of controlling the IR port.
> >>
> >> What it we was to connect an ir led to the bottom connector of the
phone
> >> scomehow, could java control it then?
> >>
> >> I obviously don't mean connect it straight to it, but u know what im
> >getting
> >> at!
> >>
> >> I really would like 2 have a tv remote prog 4 my phone!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> What do u all think?
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:31:10 +1000, "Daniel Juhn"
> <j.u.h.n.remove.the.periods@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >go get a clue.
> >java is programmed into the t610 "sandbox" style. thats why you cant
access
> >the IR layer. it is outside the sandbox. similarly, other phone functions
> >such as inbox etc., let alone homemade hardware components.
>
> Yeah. Useful post. Get a clue yourself and be a bit more forward
> thinking.
>
> There's nothing stopping a Java applet sending out DTMF tones (or
> equivalent) which could be picked up by a device and sent out as IR
> signals.
>
> Rather than giving negative comments such as "I've heard the term
> sandbox and that puts me in a position to piss on you from on high,"
> why don't you do something useful like post links which actually
> explain the limitations of Java on the T610?
>
> Start here:
>
http://www.sonyericsson.com/develope...ro/java/p_java
..jsp
>
> Good luck!
>

dtmf tones?
lol
so this device is going to sit there listening for certain frequencies of
sound as a supplementary device?
duncha think that just MAYBE an actual remote would be a shit load more
effective?

"realShady" <not@for.you> wrote in message
news:6ndipv08todhri9jo2jm5497fca2av05tm@4ax.com...
> >"Scott" <scottyboyfun@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:f6_lb.519$yF3.78@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >> Apparently java programs can't be used to control the IR port of the
T610
> >> because java isn't capable of controlling the IR port.
> >>
> >> What it we was to connect an ir led to the bottom connector of the
phone
> >> scomehow, could java control it then?
> >>
> >> I obviously don't mean connect it straight to it, but u know what im
> >getting
> >> at!
> >>
> >> I really would like 2 have a tv remote prog 4 my phone!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> What do u all think?
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:31:10 +1000, "Daniel Juhn"
> <j.u.h.n.remove.the.periods@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >go get a clue.
> >java is programmed into the t610 "sandbox" style. thats why you cant
access
> >the IR layer. it is outside the sandbox. similarly, other phone functions
> >such as inbox etc., let alone homemade hardware components.
>
> Yeah. Useful post. Get a clue yourself and be a bit more forward
> thinking.
>
> There's nothing stopping a Java applet sending out DTMF tones (or
> equivalent) which could be picked up by a device and sent out as IR
> signals.
>
> Rather than giving negative comments such as "I've heard the term
> sandbox and that puts me in a position to piss on you from on high,"
> why don't you do something useful like post links which actually
> explain the limitations of Java on the T610?
>
> Start here:
>
http://www.sonyericsson.com/develope...ava/p_java.jsp
>
> Good luck!
>

Daniel Juhn - typed:
> dtmf tones?
> lol
> so this device is going to sit there listening for certain
> frequencies of sound as a supplementary device?
> duncha think that just MAYBE an actual remote would be a shit load
> more effective?

Yes but as an owner of (only) 5 remote controls, being able to control
all of them including stacking commands would be useful without buying
yet another one. At least if the phone gets lost in the sofa, you can
ring it

The point about sandboxing is also an important issue regarding
security. Perhaps in time, functions like this will be possible. I do
wonder what range the average mobile's IR transmitter would be effective
over though. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of us weren't
programming our DVD/BlueRay video recorders, switching on our
microwave's etc, etc from mobile phones in the not to distant future.
Don't knock a bit of speculative thinking.

"Q" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bndgd6$v0fs9$1@ID-173588.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Daniel Juhn - typed:
> > dtmf tones?
> > lol
> > so this device is going to sit there listening for certain
> > frequencies of sound as a supplementary device?
> > duncha think that just MAYBE an actual remote would be a shit load
> > more effective?
>
> Yes but as an owner of (only) 5 remote controls, being able to control
> all of them including stacking commands would be useful without buying
> yet another one. At least if the phone gets lost in the sofa, you can
> ring it

LOL.

>
> The point about sandboxing is also an important issue regarding
> security. Perhaps in time, functions like this will be possible. I do
> wonder what range the average mobile's IR transmitter would be effective
> over though. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of us weren't
> programming our DVD/BlueRay video recorders, switching on our
> microwave's etc, etc from mobile phones in the not to distant future.
> Don't knock a bit of speculative thinking.
>
Bravo !

Forward thinking and speculative thinking is what makes those who develop
and invent strive to do more with more. Or in this case, more with less.

I mean - phones do more all the time. If you had been told, on getting your
first mobile, you would be able to buy one in x years time that would fit in
the palm of your hand and be able to take (albeit not great) pictures, then
send them to another person in seconds, you'd have probably poo-poohed the
idea too. I certainly would cos my first mobile was a BT Amber - a thing
with a suitcase handle on it the size of two house bricks lashed together
that weighed as much if not more, and was handy not only as an emergency
communication device for the girl about town but an offensive weapon too.
;-)




Rachael

lets not diverge from the point.
the original post was getting at an addon module to a current phone.
sure, maybe phones in the future will have remote control functions, be it
via IR or bluetooth or something else... but that will be a different phone.
you cant get a brick phone from several years ago and addon to it.

"Rachael the Wiccan Rat" <none@badrats.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bne3e2$10he08$1@ID-117055.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Q" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:bndgd6$v0fs9$1@ID-173588.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Daniel Juhn - typed:
> > > dtmf tones?
> > > lol
> > > so this device is going to sit there listening for certain
> > > frequencies of sound as a supplementary device?
> > > duncha think that just MAYBE an actual remote would be a shit load
> > > more effective?
> >
> > Yes but as an owner of (only) 5 remote controls, being able to control
> > all of them including stacking commands would be useful without buying
> > yet another one. At least if the phone gets lost in the sofa, you can
> > ring it
>
> LOL.
>
> >
> > The point about sandboxing is also an important issue regarding
> > security. Perhaps in time, functions like this will be possible. I do
> > wonder what range the average mobile's IR transmitter would be effective
> > over though. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of us weren't
> > programming our DVD/BlueRay video recorders, switching on our
> > microwave's etc, etc from mobile phones in the not to distant future.
> > Don't knock a bit of speculative thinking.
> >
> Bravo !
>
> Forward thinking and speculative thinking is what makes those who develop
> and invent strive to do more with more. Or in this case, more with less.
>
> I mean - phones do more all the time. If you had been told, on getting
your
> first mobile, you would be able to buy one in x years time that would fit
in
> the palm of your hand and be able to take (albeit not great) pictures,
then
> send them to another person in seconds, you'd have probably poo-poohed the
> idea too. I certainly would cos my first mobile was a BT Amber - a thing
> with a suitcase handle on it the size of two house bricks lashed together
> that weighed as much if not more, and was handy not only as an emergency
> communication device for the girl about town but an offensive weapon too.
> ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Rachael
>
>

(post reformatted to make sense of the quotes)


"Daniel Juhn" <j.u.h.n.remove.the.periods@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f9b4422$0$1089$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...

>
> "Rachael the Wiccan Rat" <none@badrats.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bne3e2$10he08$1@ID-117055.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >

> >
> > Forward thinking and speculative thinking is what makes those who
develop
> > and invent strive to do more with more. Or in this case, more with less.
> >
> > I mean - phones do more all the time. If you had been told, on getting
> your
> > first mobile, you would be able to buy one in x years time that would
fit
> in
> > the palm of your hand and be able to take (albeit not great) pictures,
> then
> > send them to another person in seconds, you'd have probably poo-poohed
the
> > idea too. I certainly would cos my first mobile was a BT Amber - a thing
> > with a suitcase handle on it the size of two house bricks lashed
together
> > that weighed as much if not more, and was handy not only as an emergency
> > communication device for the girl about town but an offensive weapon
too.
> > ;-)

>
> > lets not diverge from the point.

Why not ? It's called "discussion". ;-)

> the original post was getting at an addon module to a current phone.
> sure, maybe phones in the future will have remote control functions, be it
> via IR or bluetooth or something else... but that will be a different
phone.
> you cant get a brick phone from several years ago and addon to it.

No, but someone wanted to, figured it might not work so they decided to make
a new phone in order to do what they wanted, didn't they ? Ideas all start
somewhere - and often the first ideas don't work and bear little resemblance
to the final solution. Live a little in the realm of imagination - it's good
for you !


Rachael

"Scott" <scottyboyfun@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<f6_lb.519$yF3.78@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> Apparently java programs can't be used to control the IR port of the T610
> because java isn't capable of controlling the IR port.
>
> What it we was to connect an ir led to the bottom connector of the phone
> scomehow, could java control it then?
>
> I obviously don't mean connect it straight to it, but u know what im getting
> at!
>
> I really would like 2 have a tv remote prog 4 my phone!
>
> Thanks
>
> What do u all think?

I think i'd look at page 67 of the manual which tells you that you'd
have to sit no more than 30cm away from the TV. If you were that close
it would be easier to just lean forward and change the channel
yourself.