What is Formal Communication?

Formal communication is to the use of language what formal wear is to casual clothing (and no, we don’t mean that it’s uncomfortable, ill-fitting and only comes out for weddings, workdays and funerals!).

Essentially, formal communication is a type of communication that uses correct language, avoids slang entirely and keeps personal information to a minimum. If you write an email to your boss (known as ‘upward communication’ in the working world – how delightfully condescending of them!), then it is likely that you will be using formal communication.

Likewise, if you were to write a letter of complaint regarding, say, an inconsiderate neighbour or an unsatisfactory product, you would once again be using formal communication. If a lawyer writes to you, his/her letter will almost certainly be written formally.

Casual swearing (or any kind of swearing for that matter!), colloquialisms, personal anecdotes/questions and bad spoken habits (such as using the word ‘like’ as a form of punctuation, or ‘umming and ahhing’ too often) have no place in formal communication.

People communicating formally (as opposed to formicating communally, you understand), will also tend to use longer, perhaps more academic words and terms appropriate to the theatre of communication. If you work in marketing, for example, formal communication would see you using marketing-specific terminology at a far greater rate than you ever would in social situations.

The opposite of formal communication is ‘informal communication’. Informal communication would include the way you address friends and family, using first names instead of surnames and using a lot more slang words and opinionated speech.

When communicating formally, it is usually best to keep personal opinions to a minimum and, where possible, to discuss things from a third person perspective. Thus,

“I’ve been looking at these figures all night. So much so that I think I’ve gone cross-eyed! Anyway, I think its safe to say that the product isn’t selling”

Becomes,

“After careful evaluation of the figures, it is reasonable to assume that the product isn’t selling”

No personal involvement. No anecdote. Statistical data takes a greater role than personal opinion. See?

Of course, using informal communication in certain formal situations can be beneficial. Today, many corporations are employing informal language in order to better relate to customers and staff and corporate CEOs and motivational speakers tend to use informal communication as a way of maintaining a ‘man/woman of the people’ image. 

How Does My Radio Work?

The theory behind radio technology is actually disarmingly simple.

To better demonstrate this point, here is a little experiment that practically anyone can do; first, take a fresh 9-volt battery and a small coin. Then, tune an AM radio to static (i.e. where there are no pre-existing signals coming through). If you place the battery relatively close to the antenna and tap the coin against the battery terminals, you will hear this signal relayed over the radio (it will break the static, effectively broadcasting the signal). You couldn't use this method for much more than Morse code (and probably only over a distance of a couple of centimeters), but still, it is a pretty impressive little experiment, is it not?

At its core, radio isn’t much more complex than that. But how does it actually work?

Well, basically, it all has to do with these things called ‘sine waves’. A sine wave is a radio wave that has been encoded in a specific way (this prevents it from getting confused with any other radio wave). Each sine wave operates along a different frequency, so there is no interaction between signals. Without sine waves (or any similar technology), it would be next-to impossible for us to use cell phones, AM/FM radios, walkie-talkies, TV, GPS and much more, because all the signals would interact with one another, all at the same time.

A radio, of any kind, needs a receiver. In the case of our battery experiment, for example, there is both a transmitter and a receiver. The battery/coin setup is the transmitter and the AM radio is the receiver. Radio devices that can both send and receive signals are called ‘transceivers’.

Again, this setup is actually quite simple. The transmitter encodes information (such as a TV broadcast, or a person’s voice) into a sine wave and then transmits it, via the electrons in its antenna. The receiver then captures the signal in the intended antenna (it has electrons that are coded to the same frequency as the transmitter) and then decodes it, using the radio’s internal system, so that the original information is readily available to the user.

The science behind the decoding process is a little more complex, but it isn’t really too difficult to grasp. We’ve run quite a few answers on the ‘ins and outs’ of that stuff lately, so check those out if you wish to know more. Thanks for your question. 

What are communication concepts?

Communication concepts, basically, refer to different types of communication, topics of communication and communication terms.

‘Ask Jeeves’ actually defines this term pretty well, so we’ll go with that.

“A type of communication could be interpersonal referring to a relationship between two. A topic of communication could be empathy and how well one can empathize. Terms include identity, and finding oneself”.

Thank you, Jeeves. That will be all.

Remember that scene in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life? The one where the middle age couple order a philosophical conversation from a restaurant? Well, that scene pretty much sums up the topic part. A topic of communication, quite simply, is what you talk about; it is the subject being discussed.

A type of communication could be, for example, professional communication. In this type of communication, personal information is kept to a minimum and topics are more likely to include work-related themes. A conversation on the same work-related themes that takes place with your Wife or Husband, however, will include a lot more personal data, such as opinions and information that may be unprofessional to reveal in the workplace.

For example, a conversation with your manager about a project might go something like this, “I’m concerned that this deadline is going to be difficult to meet. It might be prudent to discuss effective time management strategies with the staff in order to ensure success”

However, that same conversation, when conducted with your partner, might be closer to this, “I have no idea how I’m going to get all this stuff finished on time. I’m so tired and the staff just aren’t putting in the effort. It takes them ages to do anything”

See the difference?

Communication terms are those terms that are used in the discussion. “Effective time management strategies” for example, is a term used in our above conversation regarding oncoming deadlines. It is a term not generally used in day-to-day discussion with loved ones and friends, but is frequently used in workplace communications. As a result, it is specified as a professional terminology and used in the professional communication example, but not in the romantic communication example.

Communication is a vast and varied field of study; areas as diverse as psychology, marketing and business management devote considerable time to the study of effective communication.

The phrase ‘communication concepts’ refers to just one part of an enormous (and potentially all-encompassing) subject. 

Gupta: Cell phones, brain tumors and a wired earpiece

What’s your favorite feature of the radio accessory? Personally, I like the design job – Its cooler than an Inuit’s underpants!

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Chief Medical Correspondent

Just about every time I use a cell phone, I plug in my wired earpiece first. Having discussed the use of earpieces on several news shows, people expect to see me using one. If I am walking around the CNN studios, my colleagues often comment on it. In airports, people will stop me in the rare cases I forget to use the earpiece, and remind me about it. Perhaps, they are intrigued because I am a neurosurgeon who openly shows some concern about cell phones.

Truth is, it is a pretty easy thing to do – using an earpiece. Furthermore, my neck doesn’t hurt after being on the phone for a long conference call, and given that many of those calls take place in a car, an earpiece becomes a requirement. Still, though, I don’t want to dodge the obvious question: Do cell phones cause brain cancer?

It may be too early to say for sure. The latency period or time between exposure and recognition of a tumor is around 20 years, sometimes longer. And, cell phone use in the U.S. has been popular for only around 15 years. Back in 1996, there were 34 million cell phone users. Today there are 9-10 times as many. Keeping that in mind, it is worth taking a more detailed look at the results of Interphone, a multinational study designed to try to answer this question.

The headline from this study was there was little or no evidence to show an association between cell phones and cancer. Though, if you went to the appendix of the study, which interestingly was available only online, you found something unsettling. The data showed people who used a cell phone 10 years or more doubled the risk of developing a glioma, a type of brain tumor. And, across the board – most of the studies that have shown an increased risk are from Scandinavia, a place where cell phones have been popular since the early 1990s. For these reasons, the whole issue of latency could become increasingly important.

Cell phones use non-ionizing radiation, which is very different from the ionizing radiation of X-rays, which everyone agrees are harmful. Non-ionizing radiation won’t strip electrons or bust up DNA. It’s more like very low power microwaves. Short term, these microwaves are likely harmless, but long term could be a different story. Anyway, who likes the idea of a microwave, even a low-powered one, next to their head all day?

And, what about kids? I have three of them, aged 5, 4 and 2. Fact is, they are more likely to lead to my early demise than cell phones. But, as hard as it is to believe sometimes, they actually have thinner skulls than adults, and will probably be using cell phones longer than I ever will.

The first person to encourage me to regularly wear an ear piece was Dr. Keith Black. He also is a neurosurgeon, and makes a living removing – you guessed it – brain tumors. Keith has long believed there is a link, and for some time, his was a lonely voice in this discussion. Nowadays, he has loud and prominent voices accompanying him. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo warning staffers to limit their cell phone use. One of the possible consequences, he says, is an increased risk of brain cancer. The city of San Francisco is trying to pass an ordinance requiring radiation warning labels on all cell phones. The European Environmental Agency has said cell phones could be as big a public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline. Even the makers of cell phones suggest you don’t place a device against your head, but rather advocate holding it 5/8 to a full inch away.

Many will roll their eyes at this, scoffing at the precautionary principle on display here. Fair enough. Still, I like my wired earpiece, and I don’t have to turn my life upside down to use it. I also text and email a lot more, because my kids rarely allow me to have a phone conversation. Speaking of kids, you will probably see mine using earpieces too, when my wife and I decide they are old enough to use one, which isn’t in the foreseeable future.

Gupta: Cell phones, brain tumors and a wired earpiece

Facebook Acquires WhatsApp for $19bn (£11bn)

Social media giants Facebook have purchased smartphone messaging app WhatsApp in a deal worth $19bn.

According to official statistics, WhatsApp has around 450 million monthly users. The makers of the app claim that it registers 1 million new users every day.

For those not in the know, WhatsApp is an Internet-based messaging service that allows people to get around text message charges. It works in much the same way that SMS (or ‘text messaging’) works, but crucially, it is free. For a small fee of $1 a year, it is possible to upgrade the service.

This is by far Facebook’s largest acquisition to date and has been met with some scepticism, but Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t seem daunted by the huge price tag; he described WhatsApp as “incredibly valuable” in a statement announcing the deal.

Prior to this deal, Facebook’s biggest purchase had been photography app Instagram, for which they paid $1bn.

Richard Taylor, North America Technology Correspondent with the BBC, said, “Some are seeing the $19bn price tag as further evidence of swollen valuations of companies as the sector experiences what may yet prove to be another dotcom bubble. WhatsApp does give Mark Zuckerberg inroads into international markets and, as importantly, to a younger demographic. But what is less clear is whether the finances will add up in the long term”.

The acquisition includes $4bn in cash, about $12bn in Facebook shares and about $3bn in stock options for WhatsApp founders and employees (of which there are around 50).

WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum has also become a member of Facebook’s board of directors. “We’re excited and honoured to partner with Mark and Facebook as we continue to bring our product to more people around the world,” said Mr. Koum. Koum has also stated that he does not intend to allow advertising on the app.

Zuckerberg stated that he believed that WhatsApp was well on its way to having a Billion users.

In an interview with BBC News, senior research analyst with eMarketer Cathy Boyle said, “WhatsApp actually has greater penetration in a lot of international markets than Facebook,” It is possible that by linking the two services, Facebook will be able to increase its customer base. She then went on to say, “WhatsApp is trying to siphon the billions that the telecom industry would make from [traditional SMS text messaging]” if that is Facebook’s intention (and we have to consider it as one of them), then it actually makes good business sense.

SOURCES:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26266689

Facebook Acquires WhatsApp for $19bn (£11bn)

Which Major Discoveries led to the Invention of the Two-Way Radio?

(Asked by ‘Scottish’ Pete from Woolwich)

Hey Pete, how’s everything? Thanks for your question.

…And what a question it is. The modern two-way radio, which is a direct descendent of the WW2-era Walkie-talkie, first became recognizable in the years just before the outbreak of World War 2. Its origins are an interesting story in their own right (but I’ll condense it here).

Three names are usually mentioned with regards to the invention of the walkie-talkie…

The first is Canadian inventor Donald Hings (1907 – 2004), who invented an early version of the technology back in 1937 (although it wasn’t widely acknowledged or used). Then, there’s American inventor Al Gross (1918 – 2000), who patented the name ‘walkie-talkie’ for his own invention a year later in ’38. Because of the ubiquity of the name, Gross became the best known ‘inventor’ of the technology at the time, even though it had technically existed for 12 months beforehand. However, this isn’t to detract from Gross’ claim, because his version of the walkie-talkie was actually quite different from Hings’ (despite operating on the same essential principles).

Then, there’s Dan Noble (1901 – 1980), a Motorola employee who, although he definitely did not invent the technology, certainly did lead the team that created the widely used WW2-era walkie-talkies. Hings’ version of the technology wasn’t used by the military until 1942, which led to Dan Noble being credited with the invention.

So, make of that mess what you will…

Now, to go back further (and get to the meat of your question), here is a list of discoveries that led to the creation of the two-way radio.

James Clark Maxwell (1831-1879), a mathematical physicist (and one of a seemingly endless line of genius Scotsmen) demonstrated that electromagnetic waves could propagate in free space in his 1865 paper ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field’ (of which the most famous fan was Albert Einstein). This led German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857 – 1894) to build on Maxwell’s pioneering work by conclusively proving the existence of electromagnetic waves in 1887.

After that, Serbian-American inventor, physicist, vegetarian and absolute genius Nikola Tesla (1856 – 1943) demonstrated the transmission of radio frequency energy in 1892. After that, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi (1874 – 1937) built a wireless system capable of transmitting signals over unprecedented distances in 1895 – which is pretty much the birth of radio.

This was an important area of study at the time; the first wireless telephone conversation took place in 1880 and was made by Alexander Graham Bell (1847 – 1922), who was another Scot, incidentally. A lot of people were working on similar technology, so it would not have been unlike the ‘space race’ of the 50’s and 60’s at the time.

Marconi went about taking over pretty much all business related to the invention of the radio (which was, eventually, credited solely to him) and, by 1907, he had established the first commercial transatlantic radio service (and also pretty much screwed Tesla out of any/all royalties he would have been owed. Nice).

Thanks to the work of Julio Cervera Baviera (1854 – 1929) the Spanish army became the first to use radio for military purposes (at least, as far as I’m aware, anyway) in the early 1900’s.

Canadian inventor Reginald Fessenden (1866 – 1932) (who also helped to develop sonar and TV, incidentally), invented AM radio (no, not the ‘Breakfast Show’ –it means that more than one station can broadcast signals) when, on Christmas Eve 1906, he played some violin and read from the Bible.

Eventually, all ships were equipped with radio transmission capability, with Marconi owning a total monopoly over ship-to-shore communication. Ship-to-shore contact became a subject of increased awareness and importance following the Titanic disaster of 1912 and radios began to be seen even more as a crucial safety measure in all areas of industry as a result. Look up the 1913 ‘International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea’ (it has a Wikipedia page, I just checked) for more info.

Skipping forward a bit, now. Throughout the 1930’s, there were a ton of minor (and major) improvements made to the technology, more than a few made by Marconi and his engineers. Some really clever people made their mark on the fledgling technology here, but if I mention them all, we’ll never get to the end.

Oh, by the way, FM radio was subsequently invented by American electrical engineer Edwin Armstrong (1890 – 1954) in 1933.

By the late 30’s, Hings comes into the picture, as does the rising spectre of a terrifyingly advanced Nazi Germany. The race was on to have the best equipped armies out there fighting the Axis powers and the allies wisely put a huge amount of manpower into the development of portable radio communication. It was a decision which led directly to the rapid co-opting of Hings and Gross’ work, as well as the later improvements made by Noble.

This is a long and fascinating story (about which many books have been written), but, as a ‘potted history’ of sorts, I hope that answers your question. 

Which Major Discoveries led to the Invention of the Two-Way Radio?

Out of Africa: Earliest Human Footprints Found in UK

The earliest evidence of Human footprints (outside of Africa, where most experts believe modern Humans first appeared) has been discovered in the United Kingdom.

The prints, believed to be some 800,000 years old, were identified on the shores of Happisburgh, a small village situated on the Norfolk coastline. The footprints represent a major prehistoric find, as they are direct evidence of the earliest known Humans in Northern Europe.

Dr. Nick Ashton, of The British Museum, said of the footprints that “(They are) one of the most important discoveries, if not the most important discovery that has been made on [Britain"s] shores,”

The hollow, foot-shaped markings were discovered during a low tide last year, when unusually rough seas exposed an area of sandy beach.

Sadly, the footprints were washed away fairly quickly, but they were visible long enough to be properly recorded, photographed and studied. Dr. Aston and his team worked hard to document the monumental discovery, even as heavy rainfall filled the tracks, “The rain was filling the hollows as quickly as we could empty them,” he told a BBC reporter.

Fortunately, the team was able to obtain a 3D scan of the prints. This scan revealed that the footprints likely belonged to a group consisting of an adult male and a few children. This has led some experts to speculate that the prints are those left by a prehistoric family group. The scan was so accurate, that the adult’s shoe size was determined to have been a comfortable 8.

Dr. Isabelle De Groote of Liverpool John Moore’s University was the first to confirm that the hollows were Human footprints. She told BBC that, “They appear to have been made by one adult male who was about 5ft 9in (175cm) tall and the shortest was about 3ft. The other larger footprints could come from young adult males or have been left by females. The glimpse of the past that we are seeing is that we have a family group moving together across the landscape.”

The family, however, were not modern Humans. Experts believe that they would have likely belonged to a group called Homo Antecessor. Remains of this extinct Human species (or possibly subspecies) have been found throughout Europe, most notably in Spain. They are thought to be among the continent’s earliest Human inhabitants.

It is generally accepted that Homo Antecessor was either a relative of Homo Heidelbergensis (an early Human considered most likely to be the direct ancestor of both modern Humans and Neanderthals), or else the same species. In either instance, h. Heidelbergensis is known to have lived in Britain about 500,000 years ago, which is about 300,000 years after changing temperatures are thought to have wiped out Britain’s Homo Antecessor population.

Homo Heidelbergensis is said to have evolved into Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man), who lived, alongside our own Homo Sapien ancestors, until about 40,000 years ago, when the receding ice (and possibly competition for food) signaled the end for our last surviving sister species.

Interestingly, in 2010, Dr. Aston and his team discovered stone tools of a kind known to have been used by h. Antecessor in Happisburgh. It is a discovery that neatly compliments that of the footprints. This find, and other supporting material, effectively confirms the presence of early Humans in Britain about one million years ago.

According to Dr. Aston, the find will rewrite our understanding of British and European prehistory. To put that into perspective a little, the Happisburgh footprints are the only such find of this age to have ever been seen outside of Africa. Even then, there are only three specimens that are considered to be older across the African continent.

800, 000 years ago the earliest Britons left a lasting mark on the landscape. In so doing, they inadvertently sent us a message from the past about who they were and how they might have lived.

SOURCES:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26025763

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

Out of Africa: Earliest Human Footprints Found in UK