 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> CAUTION: NOT SAFE FOR... ANYWHERE!
>
> http://www.youporn.com/watch/6719
>
> Hey Scott, is this part of normal test procedure for a mobile phone? ;-)
Actually we do have to make up a liquid mix called "artificial sweat" and
check that the display is ok with it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> CAUTION: NOT SAFE FOR... ANYWHERE!
>>
>> http://www.youporn.com/watch/6719
>>
>> Hey Scott, is this part of normal test procedure for a mobile phone? ;-)
>
> Actually we do have to make up a liquid mix called "artificial sweat"
> and check that the display is ok with it...
Hehe. I presume 100% emersion in this fluid is not part of any test
protocol though? ;-)
[Actually, being serious now... Does anybody check that mobiles phones
are at least slightly splash-proof?]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> CAUTION: NOT SAFE FOR... ANYWHERE!
>
> http://www.youporn.com/watch/6719
...OK, I just looked up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_Things_Removed_from_the_Human_Body
to see if "mobile phone" was one of them. o_O
I am a sick, sick person...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> [Actually, being serious now... Does anybody check that mobiles phones
> are at least slightly splash-proof?]
>
I was going to say 'all the kiddies filming bukkake on their mobiles'
but I don't want to gross you out so I won't
:-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hehe. I presume 100% emersion in this fluid is not part of any test
> protocol though? ;-)
It's applied to 100% of the display surface, but it's not submerged. You'd
need to define the depth and make it water-tight then, which is a bit OTT
for a phone.
> [Actually, being serious now... Does anybody check that mobiles phones are
> at least slightly splash-proof?]
Yes, of course they are designed for a certain amount of splashing. You
couldn't afford to release a phone that stopped working if you used it in
the rain.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:02:27 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmail com>
wrote:
>>
>I was going to say 'all the kiddies filming bukkake on their mobiles'
>but I don't want to gross you out so I won't
>:-)
I'm glad you didn't :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Yes, of course they are designed for a certain amount of splashing. You
> couldn't afford to release a phone that stopped working if you used it
> in the rain.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13755
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:28:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Yes, of course they are designed for a certain amount of splashing.
>> You couldn't afford to release a phone that stopped working if you used
>> it in the rain.
>
> http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13755
The scam part of it is that the cell phone companies want you to
"upgrade" a perfectly serviceable phone if the battery gets wet.
My wife's got an older LG TDMA phone - we pay about $15/month for the
service on it (very limited minutes, essentially intended for emergency
use). Battery got wet, and Verizon said we couldn't get a new battery
for it, that she'd have to get a new phone. Oh, and she can get a new
phone for free if she signs a new contract (which wouldn't cost $15/
month, either).
It never occurred to me that this strip might be removable; we ended up
buying a new battery at Batteries Plus for about $30. The one that got
wet wasn't lasting very long anyways, so a replacement battery wasn't a
bad idea.
And Verizon still has to honor the $15/month contract since she didn't
sign a new one. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:28:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> > http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13755
Scam or safety mesure? Who knows?
> The scam part of it is that the cell phone companies want you to
> "upgrade" a perfectly serviceable phone if the battery gets wet.
Scam or incompetence? Or maybe opportunistic behavior (abusing a
perfectly legit safety measure to earn some buck)?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:21:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:28:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>> > http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13755
>
> Scam or safety mesure? Who knows?
The truth probably falls somewhere in the middle.
>> The scam part of it is that the cell phone companies want you to
>> "upgrade" a perfectly serviceable phone if the battery gets wet.
>
> Scam or incompetence? Or maybe opportunistic behavior (abusing a
> perfectly legit safety measure to earn some buck)?
Again, probably somewhere in the middle, though I'm sure Verizon doesn't
like having to continue to accept the terms of that old agreement - but
there wasn't a term on it (ie, a duration it was good for), so they're
still honoring it even though they don't want to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
