Suchergebnisse

"January, 1955." ; Bibliography: p. 7-8. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Bluetooth has constantly evolved from its cradle in 1997 to the last 5.2 version in 2020. With each update and amendment, it has gained in speed, range, and versatility. One of the latest introductions was the Bluetooth Mesh Profile (BMP) making it a technology suitable for a wide variety of applications. Nevertheless, BMP was designed to maintain the compatibility with Bluetooth version 4 devices already deployed in the market. This imposes some restrictions that place Bluetooth Mesh under other competing technologies like Zigbee or Thread in terms of throughput performance. In this paper we propose two mechanisms to overcome these limitations and take advantage of the new extended advertising capabilities introduced with Bluetooth 5. These mechanisms are presented as modifications to the current protocol stack to allow the transmission of larger data structures. Thus, it is possible to boost the throughput of Bluetooth Mesh making it suitable to more demanding applications like, for example, image transmission. The first proposal is designed as an adaptation layer to avoid modifying the standard in its current form. The second makes minimal changes to the frame structure at the different layers enabling the user to accommodate possible encapsulations (i.e., tunneling) without incurring IPv6-layer fragmentation. We have analyzed both solutions and compared them with the current BMP in terms of throughput, delay, and energy consumption for different channel conditions and network size. The results show that except for very small messages or poor channel conditions the proposals improve the throughput and delay of the current BMP. ; This work was supported in part by the Spanish Ministry of Science through the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) under Project RTI2018-099880-B-C32, Project RTI2018-095684-B-I00, and Project RTI2018-099063-B-I00; and in part by the Government of Aragon (Reference Group) under Grant T31_20R. ; Peer Reviewed ; Postprint (published version)

Argues that risk assessment, supposedly the scientific component of risk regulation (as opposed to risk management, the policy component), cannot be very scientific because too little is known. Risk assessment relies on conventions promulgated by bureaucrats or on the professional judgments of scientific experts, which reflect not only scientific knowledge, but also policy judgments & cultural values. Inadequate scientific knowledge, & the lack of public trust in government & in experts, should induce risk regulators to not only institutional arrangements likely to foster trust, but also mechanisms for providing concerned individuals with credible reassurance. The divergences between public perceptions & expert perceptions of risks, & the weights that a democratic society should give to each in assessing & managing risks, are addressed. 1 Table. Adapted from the source document.

This article argues that risk assessment, supposedly the scientific component of risk regulation (as opposed to risk management, the policy component), cannot be very scientific because too little is known. Without firm scientific knowledge, risk assessment must rely on conventions promulgated by bureaucrats or on the professional judgments of scientific experts; such conventions and judgments reflect not only scientific knowledge but also policy judgments and cultural values. The inadequacy of scientific knowledge, coupled with the lack of public trust in government and in experts, suggests that risk regulators should be concerned not only with creating institutional arrangements likely to foster trust but also with creating mechanisms for providing concerned individuals with credible reassurance. The article concludes by discussing divergences between public perceptions and expert perceptions of risks, and the weights that a democratic society should give to each in assessing and managing risks.