Talk:Bluetooth Low Energy

Again this stupid challenging the style of reporting and writing. Yes, it might be biased to read about news and novelties, as market did not prove survivability. But Darwin did not report that criticaster have a longer standing in evolution. Look, an encyclopedia is not a museum. Hence it is highly appreciated, when 1. state of the art 2. moves in the world e.g. of technologies 3. specifics of a novelty are reported in the context of an encyclopedic article. May flash stroke all those Wikipedia policemen who like to complain about style deficiencies and being at the very same time obviously unable and unwilling to contribute to improvement. Keep your ugly minds out (not all reporting is advertisement) and your lazy hands off (only improving is helpful). Wireless friend (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Which edits and/or editors are you complaining about? I don't understand what you're getting at. --Imroy (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically: Such editors placing the just the comment tags do not contribute to contents, but apparently just pollute the pages.Wireless friend (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Complaints and no contribution?

Thanks to the authors for the wide span of contents. And shame to the interested parties that complain and do not contribute. Two months passed and no contribution recognized. Do it better or keep hands off. Tags deleted. Wireless friend (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They will never contribute. They call themselves "wikignomes." Check out their cutesy little wikipedia page. They take pride in editing for form without knowing anything about the content. Unfortunately many of them massively misinterpret the very rules they're trying to enforce so their net effect is to litter the pages they visit with useless little piles of gnome shit. Wikipedia apparently has no mechanism to police them.

Freedom of information act

I took the freedom to remove the "too technical" complaint tag. Who on Earth is afraid of reading specification data? I am so happy to read more than the ordinary "more or less" statements with reference to Charles Darwin or Carl Linnaeus. Wonderful Wireless friend (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Total time to send data

That line on the table doesn't mean much without defn. I *think* it means best time to connect, send one byte, and disconnect again William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Market Demand

Might I suggest this section be reworded? It's quite hard to follow at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.100.24 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the material was obviously written by non-native english speakers --- my guess is they are east Europeans or Russians. The rambling, disconnected sentence structures suggest Russians (Putin's speeches, translated to English, are almost unintelligible and completely unbearable. Rooskies like to use long phrases as adjectives --- very annoying). I could go through this article and fix it but I have better things to do and even when fixed the page will still suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.204 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Range of BLE?

The top of the article and the first table talks about BLE having a range of 50 m, while the second table talks about it having 200 m. Which one would be correct? A scan of the specifications from bluetooth.org doesn't give any straight answers (not that it should, given the multitude of factors that affects range of wireless signals), but I'd be inclined to believe it to be 50 m more than 200 m, since it is 'Low Energy' (Classic Bluetooth being 100 m for Class 1, as a comparison). I'll change the 200 m to 50 m for now, to reduce confusion. If there are references to the contrary, please revert and update! SiriusExcelsior (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you already know that if we don't define the statistics assumed for propagation attenuation, co-channel interference, etc., etc., then 50 m = 200 m. It's just commercial puffery and I kind of like keeping both figures --- it shows they're both bullshit, whoops I mean guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.186.204 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)