Voice Dial options for iPhone 3G

*** NEW LATE BREAKING NEWS - Proper Procedure for BlueAnt V1 @ v5.3 and iPhone G @ OS 3.0 ***

BlueAnt Tech support supplied me with a procedure, so I am paraphrasing below the procedure which has worked for me! (Kyle has described another method in the comments section below the post)

1) Put on the V1 then:

2) Ensure the V1 is in Idle mode - switched ON but not connected to any phone,

3) then click BAB - multi function button - and say “settings menu” then, “reset the V1”.

4) Then turn off the V1. (Good luck with this, I couldn't turn it off, but anyway...)

5) On the IPhone: remove the profile for the V1 on the IPhone by selecting “unpair”.

6) Then remove all numbers in favorites list and turn the IPhone Off and On (I did a hard-power off, that is top/sleep button and menu button at the same time, then slide to turn off)

7) Then pair the V1 with the IPhone and...

8) repopulate the favorites list.

...and Bob is your uncle.

So my original post below stands.

=> original post:

We all know this now, that the iPhone 3G does NOT do voice dial directly from the operating system, even with the new OS 3.0. This is a feature reserved only for the 3GS.

A quick key-word search will make this painfully clear, extremely painful in fact if you didn't have the foresight to check BEFORE you bought your iPhone 3G, which probably lead you here.

Despair not, there are some possibilities:

If it is illegal in your region to handle your phone while driving, like it is for me, I have found the following workaround, while incomplete, does the basics of what I need.

The BlueAnt V1 Voice Controlled Headset. It's not a cheap date though.

When pressing the BlueAnt button on the V1 it accesses the favourites list in the iPhone in the order they're laid out for its speed-dialling feature. Sort your 9 favourites in the proper order and Bob's your uncle. Like I said, this is enough for most of my calls, but there's no navigating through all your contacts.

Speed Dial slot #5, on the V1, is reserved for GOOG-411. So your favourite #5 becomes speed-dial slot #6. No biggy, just have to keep that in mind when putting the list in order.

Downloadable apps from iTunes (as of June 18^th, 2009):

Keep in mind that all the apps suggested below require handling of the phone in order to dial, so no Bluetooth access. Personally I can't and won't use any of them while driving. Your own mileage may vary, so check your local laws, and sort out for yourself how dangerous you want to be when driving.

Fonix iSpeak - This one was recommended to me when I squeezed Rogers Wireless for a workaround to what I consider the no-voice dialling design flaw of the 3G.

There are also: Say Who LITE, Vlingo, Voice This from HRL, AdelaVoice Voice Dialer. There may be others.

I honestly had never even thought to check the iPhone for voice dialing capability; it just seemed so obvious a feature to have, but that is completely my bad. So I write this in the hope that I can help some of you out there who are frustrated with this, and maybe with themselves for not checking either.

iPhone 3G does NOT Voice Dial

=> Click here for voice dial options for the 3G <=)

I bought an iPhone 3G a month ago – actually, one month and one day precisely.

I was looking to replace a really old Palm Pilot V and a p.o.s. Samsung mobile with a single device, and if there were games and videos on it, all the better.

I really wanted a Blackberry, but Bell wouldn't budge on the data-plan that I had to have with it. That is I had to fork over $70 a month. I don't want or need a data plan, and am not prepared to spend the extra 1000$ for the privilege. So I went with Rogers and got the iPhone instead at 40$/mo for three years.

To be honest, I'm a little excited about getting an iPod-like Apple device, as I've heard really glowing reviews about these things.

I quickly discover, however, that the iPhone has one major drawback – it doesn't do voice dial!

This is really a requirement in Quebec where provincial law states that you aren't allowed to mess with your phone while driving. You can talk as long as you aren't holding anything in your hand.

Given that it's really a high-end mobile device, I figured haplessly and without checking that it would obviously have voice dial. To my great chagrin I find it doesn't. Not a big deal, Apple is supposed to have a software update that fixes this particular problem. I wait patiently.

On the eve of 30-day expiration, while I am having supper with friends, the news comes out that the software fix for voice-dialling will not apply to the older 3G phones, making my brand new month-old phone an obsolete boat anchor in the process.

The iPhone 3G will never have voice dial because the software update, the OS 3.0, which has the voice dial feature does not apply to the 3G. The new one, the iPhone 3GS coming out in a week, does have the voice dial feature activated.

Now I'm stuck for 3 years with a major feature design flaw, which feature that I really, really wanted and that was in fact a deal breaker, if I had known.

It is entirely my fault for not checking. I have no one to blame but myself. Nevertheless I am still livid.

I call Future Shop where I am told to fuck off, in no uncertain terms. 30 days is 30 days, but maybe I can call Rogers to plead my case.

Rogers tells me to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

The worst part is that a little voice in my brain was telling me not to buy it right away. But I dismissed it as a long-ago grudge against Apple products.

I had major difficulties with activating the account, I had to visit Future Shop 2 days in a row, and then some issues with acquiring some of the accessories.

For some obscure reason I dismissed all this karma and was hell bent on buying the thing for some utterly stupid use: I just wanted a little entertainment for myself while working at the motocross track this summer.

To make matters worse still, a little over a week ago, someone broke into my truck and stole the car-adaptors for it.

And this week, my beloved iPhone has transmission issues where the party with whom I am trying to speak hear nothing but static. I can hear them just fine.

I shake my head.

For the longest time in my career as a system administrator I would refuse to support Macintoshes, another delightful Apple product, because they were by and large unsupportable in the traditional sense. And now I get bit in the ass by Apple and for the very same reason I refused to support their gear in the past.

I guess they got me in the end, didn't they?

That'll teach me to be magnanimous, in trying to be open minded and give-the-guy-a-chance.

Passive Murder

I am moved. Or possibly will have a bowel movement. The upsetting thingy of the day, nay past couple of weeks, is religious freedom and state interference.

I have been following a couple of stories in recent news of parents killing their offspring.

The first was about parents not seeking medical attention for their diabetic daughter, Madeline Kara Neumann of 11 years. The District Attorney of Marathon County, Wisconsin, is considering pressing charges for manslaughter. The gruesome details are simple: the girl was in diabetic shock for several days while the parents prayed on. In fact the little girl was displaying signs of type-1 diabetes for a full month before her death. Relatives did try to intercede on the girl's behalf, while the parents refused medical treatment for their daughter, and prayed on.

This is one of these standard-strict interpretation religions whereas they substitute medicine for prayer.

This reminds me of an old "joke":

'Heavy rains are flooding a low lying area. TV reports of imminent flooding and authorities broadcast an evacuation advisory.

'Our hero decides to stay with his homestead.

'The police show up at his door and enjoin our man to evacuate, to which he replies: "it's the will of God, he will save me."

'After a fashion his first floor gets flooded, our man climbs up to the second floor. The fire department shows up in a dingy to rescue our hero. He refuses. "The will of God, he will save me!" he says.

'Hours later, as he is sitting on his roof praying for salvation, Search and Rescue arrive in a chopper. But again he refuses.

'The man drowns.

'He gets to heaven, and of course, he is very severely pissed at God.

'"God why have you forsaken me? I've been devout and yet you didn't save me!"

'God is totally exasperated, and replies: "Good grief man! I broadcast an evacuation, sent you the cops, a boat and a fucking chopper! What the hell else did you want me to do?"

Sometimes God doesn't act all that mysteriously.

Anyway back to our religious fanatics, I'm all for religious beliefs, sure. But I also figure there should be a very special kind of hell reserved for parents who torture and kill their children even passively. I do hope Wisconsin throws the book at them.

Now this all gets more interesting, in other news:

There's a 13-year old boy, on the lam with him mom, who is refusing chemo for Hodgkin's lymphoma. He believes in alternate medicines as his parents have duly taught him. The reports I've read say he has a 95% chance of making a full recovery with chemo, yet refusing this treatment on religious beliefs.

This story is a little more proactive in nature. The courts have actually ordered this child to live. Mom is now in contempt and has an arrest warrant out on her sorry ass.

Be it known that I actually find it reprehensible that courts could override a parent's determination of their child's care. The state has no business interfering in the family nucleus, but then I also feel neither does the church! Case in point, if the film Evelyn with Pierce Brosnan is anything to go on, it's one of the reasons America founded separation of church and state.

I think my views on state-control are well known at this point.

Unfortunately I have to come to the conclusion that it is sometimes necessary for the authorities to step in. While never ideal, if it's a child's last hope, it's certainly better than nothing. Keyword there: "last hope".

I fear there's no way to prevent pre-emptive strikes by the state to presumably save children that don't actually need it and thereby destroying families in the process. I am certainly torn on the subject, but with yahoos willing to murder their kids by denying modern medicines I start to praise that which I hate.

Back to our 13-year-old hero.

He's not yet allowed to drive.

He's not yet allowed to drink.

Technically he's not yet allowed to screw (depending on state laws, granted).

But apparently he's allowed decision of life and death?

He's allowed to commit suicide?

Actually, there's the rub.

Many years ago, I think it was in high-school, we received some sensitization training on teen-suicide. I don't remember much of it now, but something did stick in my brain for a long time afterwards.

It was the question on the legality of suicide.

Where I lived suicide was actually a crime. My young brain was baffled.

For one thing, if you are dead, what the hell difference does it make if it's a crime? You don't go to jail. Furthermore, if you miss yourself does that mean you get your ass hauled off to jail on an attempted crime, whereas it seemed to me a trip to the psych ward would probably be a better investment.

As I grew older I began to understand the ramifications of making suicide a crime. It meant assisted suicide becomes a crime too! This is a safeguard of sorts against taking of a life and passing it off.

In this case, some pundits are saying 'if the boy wants to kill himself… blah, blah'. Technically, the boy is not actually allowed to kill himself now is he? This would be a crime! Something seemingly snaky now starts to make sense.

Other pundits are spouting 'dying with dignity… blah, blah'. To this I respond that a 13-year-old is unequivocally incapable of making that decision. If you are 50 years old pain ridden with 10% chance of survival, then yes, the quality of the life you have left by refusing treatment should very much be your own choice.

Here is something the pundits are wont to remember: magical thought. Children, except the very gifted, and I say gifted guardedly, don't understand their own death. Indeed that very concept doesn't really sink in until the early twenties, sometimes much later. Children just don't get that they can die. Their brains just can't compute it.

They do understand sick though.

What I'm thinking is that the 13-year-old boy is making a case with his mom about not wanting to be sick, he's just not fathoming death. Mom is a true-believer and his refusing treatment, no matter the reason, plays into her believer-hand perfectly.

I've talked about the issue I have with people who can't tell the difference between what they believe and what is fact. This is a perfect representation of that conundrum.

Mom believes in faith healing. I can't fault that.

But then I believe in science.

This means that my position will be that of proven fact as can be demonstrated by scientific method or, hell dare I say it, statistics.

My logical will say this: given the child can't make an elucidated decision, then treatment must be mandated and such or such treatment is chosen because it has a track record of being valid and successful. Of course then I add upon this my own empirical evidence of my family and friends saved by the very chemo that would save this child and it's pretty clear cut to me.

But faith isn't about logic, is it?

Faith is about, well, potentially defying logic and being at peace with it. Ok I get that, I really do.

I've been thinking about this blog for several days now, and I still haven't come to a comfortable conclusion.

I don't want the state to decide in lieu of enlightened family decision.

• But what is enlightened?
  

I don't think anyone should impose their religious beliefs on another, especially when it comes to decisions of life and death.

• But logic is itself a dogma of sorts too isn't it? And therefore I am guilty of imposing it!
  

Leave it to the experts, the doctors, etc. to council on what's best.

• But expertise is based on who you believe and why. Many don't trust doctors believing they're just in it for the money! Many don't trust the clergy for reasons that are just as obvious albeit more personal. So who's to say which is right?
  

Maybe there's a middle ground here someplace? How about traditional treatment now, and when the kid is 18 he can then decide to off himself if he feels that strongly about it.

Hmmm. I think I'm about to get vociferous again.

The bottom line is that religious zealots are all about holding God (and others) hostage aren't they?

It's about imposing your faith on your child and praying that he or she survives the imposition. But worse in my book it's making light of life on earth in favour of an afterlife, but deciding for someone else! So my question is: how do you hold faith accountable?

The word belief was chosen carefully in the above statements. Belief is interpretation of fact, which is based on one's own experience…

 

"Good grief man! I send you scientific evidence, send you doctors, chemo and fucking logic! What the hell else do you want me to do?"

Bailout Greens

In these times of eco-troubles, we are trying to balance economy with the environment, often at odds. We don't seem to have clear view of better times, and does that view include greener solutions? You can be ecological all you want when you can afford it. Keep this in mind for a minute.

I was thinking about Beloved Barrack's gambit of putting the screws to the automakers for the People's Loan.

More power to him.

Then I thought if I were the typical arrogant automaker of old, see how I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here, I'd be looking for financing where the attached strings aren't cramping my style. So I'm thinking to myself in my Japanese-made S.U.V. on my way to my shrink, who would have the kind of money for a bailout of the magnitude we're talking about here? When the Boss-man of the richest country in the world is taking you to task, you have to wonder how grim your state of affairs really is.

It comes to me: who has money enough to buy God with an Amex?

The oil companies.

In these times of hardship, they are still making a killing, so to speak. So why is it, exactly, that the oil companies aren't fronting up the cash for the automakers?

Remember my first statement in this post?

For one thing, the eco-world would have an unholy fit I'm sure, and for obvious reasons.

But then the debt that Blessed-Barrack and other world leaders are incurring to recover the economy will come out of our taxes for the next several generations, I'm thinking a hundred years, maybe more.

And the loan to save some 1/2 million jobs and an intrinsic way of life is part of this debt.

But that particular way of life isn't exactly green. More cars? Fuel efficient? Hmm, I must refer to the arrogance of bad-old GM for instance which destroyed the EV-1 Impact full-electric vehicles.

And as the Indians are aspiring to a safer mode of individual transportation, Tata comes under fire for wanting to produce cheap gas lawnmower-engined vehicles to replace the family motorcycle. Of course the eco-world is all dead set against the Indians putting all those cheap cars on the road, but we certainly want to keep our own auto industry alive. Huh?

So you can go green or you can save a way of life, but it seems you can't do both. Or maybe there is?

Maybe Bailout-Barrack should put the screws onto the automakers: they get the cash only for alternate-fuel designed cars!

Nah.

Retrofitting American compacts would probably put them at around $67,000 each and they would still be cheap, unreliable crap.

Stupid Iz

Note: I apologize up front for the style of this post, ie. the use of "double quotes", (parenthesis), ->little arrows<-, shouting in CAPS, etc. I hate bowing down to these simplistic graphic vehicles in my written language, but this morning I'm just too tired to expend the energy for it. In effect, this is a departure from the self-imposed perfection I was talking about in my Deserve Well post! We'll get back to proper grammar and writing style for my next post.

 

Just the other day I was debating genetics of stupidity. My grandma sometimes said: « Il y a des gens qui sont née sans-desseins, c'est pas leur faute, ils sont nées comme ca. »

It's one of these dictums that cannot be translated directly, but a loose translation would be: "Some people are born without mental wherewithal, it's not their fault, they're just born that way."

I desperately try not to judge based on mental acuity. Operative word: "try", since I typically fail miserably when confronted with utter stupidity. (oops! So much for not judging.)

Anyway, I was a manager once, long ago. During this time I made the realization that everyone in an organization has different strengths and weaknesses. Some could be developed, others leveraged, and others avoided. Mental acuity was just one of many qualities needed in the type of job we were doing. Steadfastness and patience was another easy one. Social skills were de rigueur, being in customer service, etc.

Seldom was outright idiocy displayed however. Usually seemingly idiotic decisions were often explained by hidden agendas once brought to light, or simple ignorance of some facts, or just hadn't realized some important element. So I came to the natural conclusion that bad decisions weren't necessarily akin to stupidity and looking deeper, if I so had the time and inclination, would yield a different point of view.

Intelligence is measured in many different ways. For instance there's: book smart, street smart, troubleshooters (white box or black box), associative, creative, science, theology, Mensa, mentalist, sales, marketing, and even manipulative. The list goes "on-dan-don" as Céline would say.

Some are adept at situational analysis and others still at survival, among others.

Given all the possibilities, I came to the conclusion in my recent discussion, that everyone had the "wherewithal" gene, whether it be recognized or not. While some may not choose to use it, or may not have been shown how, it is there nevertheless. I chose to exclude outright mental disabilities from the equation.

As per scientific methodology: observation -> conjecture -> hypothesis -> test and cycle, I was ultimately coming to the theory that a "smart" gene existed in everyone.

And then all of a sudden as if by magic, coincidence, happenstance, or design, I get a flood of examples of people seemingly just too stupid to live. I'm thinking my hypothesis may need looking at. I give you today a misguided, distraught and so very, very screwed young woman (I'm not saying "lady", as that would be a serious stretch! You'll see why in a minute.)

In a nutshell, she's in the middle of a custody battle with her ex, for their kid. As so many people are having to play this game nowadays, she's looking for ammo to discredit him. I'm not sure if she had the brainstorm herself or if it came from someone else, but I have to admire the initiative, well sort of anyway.

She has her laptop brought into the police station, claiming her ex had left child porn on it, and if they could find it, this would be evidence that he's an unfit father. A sound plan, right up until the cops find a couple of videos, in the recycle-bin on her desktop, of her engaging in sexual activities with a dog! (Go ahead, read that last sentence again slowly.)

Ok, not my cup of tea, but I'm still trying not to judge remember?

But then the sorry bitch admits to the bestiality felony, this is AFTER the cops have informed her of her Fifth-amendment rights and that the videos contained evidence of a felony. Furthermore she compounds the problem in admitting she was drunk at the time (and she's on probation for this!), and just for shits and giggles admits to trying to destroy the evidence thereby making the point for the cops that she's perfectly aware that what she did, even then, was wrong. Serving her own ass on a silver platter.

I realize that she may be in distress over the custody battle, that she has blinders on, and that she is focused solely on trying to stick it to her ex… but jesus-h-christ-on-a-popsicle-stick!

Too stupid to live? You decide.

Here's the article from The Smoking Gun, including the police affidavit: The Smoking Gun "Porn Sting Goes to the Dogs"

I'm certainly giving my hypothesis the evil eye now! I'm thinking some mutations may have occurred.

al-Bashir just isn’t a nice man

(Caution, atrocities warning ahead.)

Is this the latest trend in negotiation tactics?

The President of Liberia, among other African countries, is making a case for begging. To quote Yahoo news: "Liberia, is also threatened, according to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. She said that it made sense for the richer countries in the world to fund the poorest now, since it would cost much less than paying for peacekeeping operations later." (BBC News) Isn't this exactly like saying: come and mow my lawn or I'll shit on your porch?

I'm not saying African countries don't need help, but at first I was offended at the syllogism. Nevertheless she understands her corner of the world and does make a good point.

And then as if to give her credibility, from across her continent…

Sudan's President-by-military-coup, al-Bashir, has ordered ousted all foreign humanitarian aid to his country. He is claiming that these organisations providing care, where his own government will not, are spies. He's probably right to a certain degree mind you. He certainly doesn't want any foreigners to deal directly with the Sudanese people. Then he says drop of your care packages at the airports or seaports and his government will take care of it. I, for one, have complete and utter confidence that the medicine, water and rations will, of course, get to where they need to go in a timely fashion. Riiiiight.

Notwithstanding that Sudan is the most war-torn country on the face of the earth, second only to Somalia (high praise indeed); notwithstanding that 1.1 Million people in Darfur will go without food or aid or water, and is actually a perfect representation of Hell on earth; and also notwithstanding that al-Bashir has an arrest warrant out on his ass by the International Criminal court for, wait for it, crimes against humanity! All this notwithstanding, get this, the quoted number of deaths is at 300,000 people and counting. Ok. So al-Bashir says, (wait for it), "this number is exaggerated." Exaggerated? EXAGGERATED? Seriously? He's admitting to mass murder, but basically saying, "yeah well, it's not as bad as all that". So tell me, my dear man, exactly how much mass murder is acceptable? I'm thinking maybe 100,000 slaughtered should be the high water mark, right? Good fucking grief.

Any kind of peacekeeping missions here would probably wind up killing off the 2.7 million people displaced into the arid western region because of warring factions from all corners, including Chad for that matter. But then al-Bashir's army isn't equipped well enough to slaughter them all before we get there, so I figure it might be worth a shot. Maybe I should revise my forecast of war with Iran. Sudan would make an awesomely expensive "playing field".

Then a peacenik from the World Health Organization chimes in, she's worried about al-Bashir's order tearing a gaping hole in the monitoring efforts that could lead to outbreaks of infectious disease going unchecked. "If they are not helping us do this very vital work, we may see the emergence of infectious diseases," said WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib. (AP)

I think that's precisely the point, honey.

Saves on bullets doesn't it?

Watchmen (movie review)

I can't help thinking Triplettes de Belleville, Blade Runner and Watchmen all definitely cult movies of varying genres. So it goes with Watchmen: you either worship it or you hate it. Seldom is there a middle ground for the type. Oddly enough I fit in that middle ground, I was bored out of my skull, but curious enough as to where the story was going.

Cinematically and symbolically it was very impressive, except Mars, I still don't get that. Entertainment-wise it's too long by at least an hour. I think some people left the screening because of sheer boredom, way too plodding. I looked at my watch twice, which not generally a good thing and thought about leaving at least twice. But the plodding translates into an amazing story and moral study of an alternate 1985 earth. If you get hooked (reference "cult" here) it ties up everything nicely. The ending does not leave you on your appetite. Now you may not like the ending, but all the loose ends are tied up. The action scenes are very short-lived but then they are very intelligent, including the assault/almost-rape.

I would have liked to see this as a mini-series on DVD instead. Re-add the very material which was glossed over in the opening credits, and then spread it over 4 or 5 discs. If and when you see the movie, you'll understand what I mean.

A few bonuses: I may have caught a glimpse of a Dodge Omni 024 in a back-scene, too funny and I'm impressed they even found one to film! And of course the lovely Carla Gugino in a black silk overbust corset was nice eye candy. Rorschach was positively hypnotic.

I'm not sure where to put the so-called love-scene in the hovercraft though. Miss Akerman is certainly cute enough, but meh.

The caveat: Don't see this on IMAX if you're allergic to blue penises. One of the characters is mostly naked throughout the movie and glows bright blue. It's not offensive per-se on a regular movie screen, but this giant dick on IMAX could be a little, shall we say, overwhelming. That being said, it is rated "R" – that's RESTRICTED to a mature audience, even if you think your kids are "mature", they ain't! See reference to an assault/rape-scene above, and a cold-blooded murder by the same characters is, to put it mildly, deeply disturbing.

Not having read the graphic novel/comic books I can't say how it rubs up, but then it also makes me one of those people who walked in the theatre not knowing what to expect. So from the perspective of one who has not read the novel, if you go at it with an open mind you won't be disappointed, there's plenty of visuals and story material to keep one entertained. If you go in expecting to see an action-packed superhero jaunt you'll be leaving early. It's that simple.

I'm giving it an overall C rating because of the over two and a half hours worth of cult-only direction. Unfortunately this trumps everything else, as is often the case with cult-centric productions.