 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:01:30 -0500, 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.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 5:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >>
>> > 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).
>
In the UK, on some trains, there are some coaches that are designated
"quite zones". No laptops, music players or phones are allowed. You even
have to turn your book pages quietly.
> 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.
>
Do you mean that your phone could not get onto the internet?
A colleague, who could not get a phone signal at a hotel I stayed at
recently, was able to phone home (to France) via Skype on the hotels WiFi.
Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
manage to phone home and leave messages?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
