 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 03:01 PM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still in
>> use. Generally (in my experience) in aviation, where high speed is less
>> important than reliability, stability, and the ability to operate without
>> generating a lot of heat (which increases the life of the chip).
>
> One could assume that if a 8086 was redesigned with modern technology,
> it could be built to take a hundreth of the space, made to consume a tenth
> of the energy and to produce a tenth of heat.
On the other hand, presumably doing so would cost money. Stamping out
copies of the design that already exists does not cost money. (Or
rather, it costs *almost* no money.)
Then again, I gather there's a thriving business in "IP cores"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:01:30 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still
>> in use. Generally (in my experience) in aviation, where high speed is
>> less important than reliability, stability, and the ability to operate
>> without generating a lot of heat (which increases the life of the
>> chip).
>
> One could assume that if a 8086 was redesigned with modern technology,
> it could be built to take a hundreth of the space, made to consume a
> tenth of the energy and to produce a tenth of heat.
But there's no need to do so, the original design meets the specs and
requirements.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:30:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 26/01/2011 10:04 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:15:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> Engineers spend decades designing an LCD with a wide viewing angle,
>>> and then a company sells you a device to narrow the viewing angle
>>> again. :-D How absurd.
>>
>> Of course, because when you're using your laptop on a long flight,
>> sharing company confidential information with everyone in your row is a
>> good idea.
>
> Then you shouldn't be using your laptop. Obviously.
Obviously if you have work that needs to be done, that's not an option.
> (Besides, don't they insist that all electronic devices are turned off
> for the duration of the flight?)
Absolutely not. During takeoff and landing. Once you're at altitude,
it's perfectly fine.
> It would be only too easy for the guy behind you to peek between the
> seats and see your screen - something which even this silly angle
> limiter wouldn't prevent.
Sure, it's not intended to *prevent* it, just to make it harder.
Similar to the philosophy of putting a lock on your front door. Are you
seriously suggesting that you shouldn't lock your door because someone
who's determined to get in will find a way anyways?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> That is no WiFi,
> Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
And even today, WiFi is OK on many flights (as there are in-flight WiFi
services now on some flights).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 04:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It would be only too easy for the guy behind you to peek between the
>> seats and see your screen - something which even this silly angle
>> limiter wouldn't prevent.
>
> Sure, it's not intended to *prevent* it, just to make it harder.
>
> Similar to the philosophy of putting a lock on your front door. Are you
> seriously suggesting that you shouldn't lock your door because someone
> who's determined to get in will find a way anyways?
A better analogy would be having a front door with no locks at all, and
just putting a little notice on it saying "please don't break in". It's
so utterly ineffective that there's no point doing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 4:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> That is no WiFi,
>> Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
>
> And even today, WiFi is OK on many flights (as there are in-flight WiFi
> services now on some flights).
>
I knew it was comming, didn't know it was here.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:50:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 04:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It would be only too easy for the guy behind you to peek between the
>>> seats and see your screen - something which even this silly angle
>>> limiter wouldn't prevent.
>>
>> Sure, it's not intended to *prevent* it, just to make it harder.
>>
>> Similar to the philosophy of putting a lock on your front door. Are
>> you seriously suggesting that you shouldn't lock your door because
>> someone who's determined to get in will find a way anyways?
>
> A better analogy would be having a front door with no locks at all, and
> just putting a little notice on it saying "please don't break in". It's
> so utterly ineffective that there's no point doing it.
So you leave your front door unlocked, then? What was your address? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:53:38 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 27/01/2011 4:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> That is no WiFi,
>>> Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
>>
>> And even today, WiFi is OK on many flights (as there are in-flight WiFi
>> services now on some flights).
>>
>>
> I knew it was comming, didn't know it was here.
Yeah, Delta has been doing it for about a year on selected flights, and
over the holidays, Google sponsored it (so it was free).
Interestingly, they seem to block wifi-capable cell phones (my cell
wouldn't connect to it), but my eReader (based on Android, same as my
phone) had no problems - so I sent text messages using my Nook (via
Google Voice) to let people know my flight was delayed but that we were
finally en route.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> That is no WiFi,
>> Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
>
> And even today, WiFi is OK on many flights (as there are in-flight WiFi
> services now on some flights).
Funny how much less dangerous it is when they can charge you money for it,
isn't it?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:08:09 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:52:28 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> That is no WiFi,
>>> Bluetooth or phone transmissions.
>>
>> And even today, WiFi is OK on many flights (as there are in-flight WiFi
>> services now on some flights).
>
> Funny how much less dangerous it is when they can charge you money for
> it, isn't it?
Yeah, I've noticed that as well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
