OK, so I ordered some more backup tapes, and inevitably the parcel that 
arrived contains a big glossy flying for all the other stuff I could be 
buying.

So I flick through it and go "hmm, that's interesting. You can buy an 
LCD monitor for under £100 now? That's not bad. And a portable 320GB HD 
for £30? Interesting. Oh, and some Adobe software for less than £100? 
Now that *is* unusual. Ooo, and a 64GB SSD for £70? My, those have come 
down in price."

Some of the items are more amusing. For example, if you look at any LCD, 
one of the main specs they will quote at you is the viewing angle. 
Because, unlike other display technologies, LCDs typically have a 
pitiful viewing angle. So manufacturers have sunk millions into R&D to 
find ways to increase the viewing angle.

Ah, but what's this I see? A "privacy filter"? Yes, it's a small piece 
of plastic which is transparent only when viewed from certain 
directions. In other words, you stick it to your screen to reduce the 
viewing angle. WTF, people!? :-D

(Of course, The Real WTF is that this thing costs £40...)

Then we find products which are just mystifying. Specifically, there's a 
video camera that caught my eye. Several very strange things are going 
on here.

First of all, it's supposedly a video camera, and yet it costs less than 
£2,000. Actually, it costs less than £500. To be blunt, it costs £75. 
This is highly suspicious.

On the other hand, a stills camera costs £100 or more, and yet my 
grandparents managed to buy one for £4. Needless to say, the image 
quality was laughable.

And that's where it starts to get stranger. This camera manages to claim 
that it shoots full-HD 1080p video. But if you scroll past the big shiny 
newsprint and look at the technical specifications, you discover that it 
has a piffling 7mm lens.

Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then 
stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea. The only possible 
justification I can think of is "so that we can scream 'full HD' all 
over the box".

Damn, some poor sap is going to buy this thing and be mighty 
disappointed with the image quality...

The other puzzling thing is that the device fits in the palm of your 
hand. (From the price and the lens size, we already know what kind of a 
product this is, i.e., an expensive novelty item.) It says it records to 
flash RAM, but surely full HD is going to fill that within minutes.

The product spec also claims it stores video as H.264, which surprises 
me. I was under the impression that this requires some pretty serious 
computer power (most especially for encoding).

Oh, and it's purple. WTF?

Post a reply to this message

> The other puzzling thing is that the device fits in the palm of your
> hand. (From the price and the lens size, we already know what kind of a
> product this is, i.e., an expensive novelty item.)

A bit more expensive than you mentioned, but this company makes some 
pretty cool small HD cameras for outdoor use:

http://www.goprocamera.com/

The video quality is pretty impressive, it's on my list.

> flash RAM, but surely full HD is going to fill that within minutes.

For 15 quid of SD card you can store 3 or 4 hours of full HD video.  And 
you can always buy more SD cards.

> The product spec also claims it stores video as H.264, which surprises
> me. I was under the impression that this requires some pretty serious
> computer power (most especially for encoding).

There are various levels of compression, I imagine a low power device is 
not using some of the more extravagant features that a desktop PC would 
use to increase the quality:bitrate ratio.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 11:14 AM, scott wrote:

> http://www.goprocamera.com/

OK, that's pretty insane, right there. (Then again, nothing I'll ever do 
will be cool enough to be worth filming, so...)

Also, it costs about 5x the price of this toy.

>> flash RAM, but surely full HD is going to fill that within minutes.
>
> For 15 quid of SD card you can store 3 or 4 hours of full HD video. And
> you can always buy more SD cards.

Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in 
seconds I would imagine.

>> The product spec also claims it stores video as H.264, which surprises
>> me. I was under the impression that this requires some pretty serious
>> computer power (most especially for encoding).
>
> There are various levels of compression, I imagine a low power device is
> not using some of the more extravagant features that a desktop PC would
> use to increase the quality:bitrate ratio.

I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the 
same regardless of what bitrate you select. Higher compression just 
means that more of the data is discarded. The difference between, say, 
Ogg Theora and WMV is the algorithm. Once you select an algorithm, 
changing the bitrate just changes how much of the data gets kept.

Then again, I would think there's probably silicon for directly 
computing DCTs and so forth by now...

Post a reply to this message

> Also, it costs about 5x the price of this toy.

"HD Hero 960" is only $180, which is only about 50% more than your camera.

> Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in
> seconds I would imagine.

Spec also claims it fills a 32 GB card in 4 hr 21m.  So with the 4 GB 
card I make that just over 30 mins.  If it was me I'd buy a couple of 
16GB cards, 2hr recording time per card seems pretty decent.

> I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the
> same regardless of what bitrate you select.

You want some options to play with?  :-)

http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings

The only one I heard about was the motion estimation algorithm, 
obviously the better it can detect motion between frame the less bits 
are needed to get a certain quality level.  But there seems to be a load 
more options to change stuff, in a battery powered device you would need 
to carefully consider how much of an impact each had on battery life.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 12:00 PM, scott wrote:
>> Also, it costs about 5x the price of this toy.
>
> "HD Hero 960" is only $180, which is only about 50% more than your camera.

OK, I didn't see that splashed across the front page.

Then again, I'll bet the big glossy video was shot with the flagship 
product. ;-)

>> Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in
>> seconds I would imagine.
>
> Spec also claims it fills a 32 GB card in 4 hr 21m. So with the 4 GB
> card I make that just over 30 mins. If it was me I'd buy a couple of
> 16GB cards, 2hr recording time per card seems pretty decent.

They make flash cards that big now? Mmm, interesting.

I'm still surprised that you can fit 30 minutes into 4 GB. My camcorder 
works with DVDs and it can handle less than 20 minutes, and that's only 
standard definition. (And with far more compression than I'd like too...)

>> I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the
>> same regardless of what bitrate you select.
>
> You want some options to play with? :-)
>
> http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings

OK, so you can change the frequency weightings and how often a keyframe 
is put in, and so forth. I'm not seeing much that fundamentally changes 
the whole algorithm such that it might require less computer power.

> The only one I heard about was the motion estimation algorithm,
> obviously the better it can detect motion between frame the less bits
> are needed to get a certain quality level. But there seems to be a load
> more options to change stuff, in a battery powered device you would need
> to carefully consider how much of an impact each had on battery life.

I was thinking more the problem of "how can we encode this fast enough 
to be realtime?" It's not like the device has an Intel Xeon quad-core in 
there, is it. From what I've heard, H.264 is very hungry for computer 
power. (Although, as I say, I imagine the really hungry bits probably 
have custom hardware acceleration in a device like this.)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2011 5:33 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in
> seconds I would imagine.

Nah... My 7D records 1080p HD video and can store probably about 15 
minutes on a flash card that size.

>
>>> The product spec also claims it stores video as H.264, which surprises
>>> me. I was under the impression that this requires some pretty serious
>>> computer power (most especially for encoding).
>>

Not uncommon, especially for HD video. The encoding is usually done by a 
purpose-built chip, rather that software on a general-purpose CPU.

>
> I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the
> same regardless of what bitrate you select. Higher compression just
> means that more of the data is discarded. The difference between, say,
> Ogg Theora and WMV is the algorithm. Once you select an algorithm,
> changing the bitrate just changes how much of the data gets kept.

Right, but the algorithm invariably has a trade-off for quality v.s. 
speed. It can spend more cycles determining which bits are best kept, or 
spend less time and dump the bits to storage, not always getting the 
most important ones.

>
> Then again, I would think there's probably silicon for directly
> computing DCTs and so forth by now...

Been that way for a while. DVD players, portable media players, mobil 
phones, etc ... all have hardware to do this, now.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2011 6:11 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I was thinking more the problem of "how can we encode this fast enough
> to be realtime?" It's not like the device has an Intel Xeon quad-core in
> there, is it. From what I've heard, H.264 is very hungry for computer
> power. (Although, as I say, I imagine the really hungry bits probably
> have custom hardware acceleration in a device like this.)

Again... it doesn't need to ;) The signal processor is built for one 
purpose: to change a stream of frames into a stream of H.264 encoded 
data. If you build it with just that in mind, then you can meet the goal 
of realtime compression, you don't need to worry about that chip being 
able to run Windows 7 or Linux, or accessing various IO devices, or 
doing your grandmother's taxes. You only need to worry about compressing 
the data.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in 
> seconds I would imagine.

  A 4GB DVD can contain at least an hour of decent-quality video. And that's
just using MPEG-2. (Granted, HD video has a higher resolution, but with MPEG
the bitrate does not scale linearly with the resolution.)

> I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the 
> same regardless of what bitrate you select.

  MPEG-4 is a bit more complicated than that. It's not like it's JPEG.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 03:42 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Spec claims it comes with a 4 GB flash card, but that's going to fill in
>> seconds I would imagine.
>
>    A 4GB DVD can contain at least an hour of decent-quality video. And that's
> just using MPEG-2. (Granted, HD video has a higher resolution, but with MPEG
> the bitrate does not scale linearly with the resolution.)

So how come BluRay disks are 5x the storage capacity, yet still have 
roughly the same run time? I thought it was because HD video requires 
more space to store.

>> I was under the impression that the compression algorithm remains the
>> same regardless of what bitrate you select.
>
>    MPEG-4 is a bit more complicated than that. It's not like it's JPEG.

I thought it was more or less the case that *all* codecs work by 
transforming the input, deciding how "important" each signal component 
is, and then keeping only the most important bits, according to what the 
requested bitrate was. I don't see anything there that makes a higher or 
lower bitrate change the amount of compute power required.

(Well, OK, maybe I do. I know a some codecs do a DCT, quantise it, and 
then entropy-encode the results. Bigger results = more stuff to encode.)

Post a reply to this message

> So how come BluRay disks are 5x the storage capacity, yet still have
> roughly the same run time? I thought it was because HD video requires
> more space to store.

On DVDs you'd be limited to under 2 hours if you used the maximum 
bitrate (around 10 MBit/s IIRC), so you are forced to use lower bitrates 
if you want to include menus and other various extras on the disc.  With 
BluRay, even if you used an average of 30 MBit/s (which is extremely 
high quality with h264, and likely never actually needed, it usually is 
around half that) you have about 4 hours run time.  This is why you can 
fit two versions of an entire film (eg 2D and 3D version) on a single 
disc, plus all the extras.  That would be impossible on DVD.

> I thought it was more or less the case that *all* codecs work by
> transforming the input, deciding how "important" each signal component
> is, and then keeping only the most important bits, according to what the
> requested bitrate was. I don't see anything there that makes a higher or
> lower bitrate change the amount of compute power required.

The whole point of video compression is trying to find patterns 
frame-to-frame to reduce the information needed to reconstruct the 
correct video (otherwise you'd just have a series of JPEG images).  The 
longer and more detailed you search for such patterns, the lower bitrate 
you will be able to achieve for a given level of quality, or 
equivalently higher quality for a given bitrate.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Ah, but what's this I see? A "privacy filter"? Yes, it's a small piece 

> of plastic which is transparent only when viewed from certain 
> directions. In other words, you stick it to your screen to reduce the 
> viewing angle. WTF, people!? :-D

What part of "privacy" did you misunderstand?

> First of all, it's supposedly a video camera, and yet it costs less tha
n 
> £2,000. Actually, it costs less than £500. To be blunt, it co
sts £75. 
> This is highly suspicious.

Let me blow your mind:

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/usb-rechargeable-1-3mp-pin-hole-spy-av-camer
a-disguised-as-sunglasses-tf-slot-42736

> Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then 
> stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea. 

I've never understood that, unless a 2MP photosensor is actually cheaper 
in 
bulk than a lower quality one.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> OK, so you can change the frequency weightings and how often a keyframe 
> is put in, and so forth. I'm not seeing much that fundamentally changes 
> the whole algorithm such that it might require less computer power.

Making every frame a keyframe reduces the computing and memory you need. Not 
using any B frames significantly reduces the amount of memory you need. Not 
doing motion prediction reduces how much compute power you need. (At least 
for MPEG. I don't know H.264, but I'd assume it's similar.)

> (Although, as I say, I imagine the really hungry bits probably 
> have custom hardware acceleration in a device like this.)

Exactly.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then 
> > stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea. 

> I've never understood that, unless a 2MP photosensor is actually cheaper in 
> bulk than a lower quality one.

  Well, as technology advances it often quite ironically happens that
the older some technology gets, the more expensive it becomes to purchase.
The reason is simple: Lack of demand reduces supply, and low supply means
that the product becomes expensive to produce. Production lines get
upgraded for the newer technology (if not even dismantled outright), so
the older technology becomes more difficult to produce.

  Thus the price of most technology experiences a strong U-shaped behavior
as time passes: When the technology is brand new, it's extremely expensive
(both because production costs are still high due to the lack of cheap
production lines, and to capitalize on the eagerness of early adopters).
Then it quickly gets cheaper and cheaper, until it reaches the bottom of
the price valley (and depending on the product it can become almost
ridiculously cheap compared to its original price). Then it stays there
for some time, and when the technology gets more and more obsolete, and
demand decreases, it starts becoming once again more and more expensive
to produce. Depending on the product, it may at some point become impossible
to purchase anymore (because nobody is making it), or extremely expensive
(even more expensive than when it was brand new).

  This is the reason you eg. don't find half-gigabyte USB memory sticks
anymore, even though one could think that they would be very cheap to
produce. In fact, they might not be. They might actually be pretty
expensive to produce, which is why nobody does anymore.

  It may also explain why it's cheaper to produce a camera with a 2MP
sensor than one with eg. 1MP.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Well, as technology advances it often quite ironically happens that
> the older some technology gets, the more expensive it becomes to purchase.

That was what I had intended to imply, yes. :-)

> (both because production costs are still high due to the lack of cheap
> production lines, and to capitalize on the eagerness of early adopters).

It's more that the technology requires a shake-down period. Yields are 
tremendously low until every one of the hundreds of precise steps gets 
adjusted just right.  A 10% yield on early runs is a good number.

You're also paying off the design. I have a friend who designed RISC chips 
for one of the big CPU companies before ARM bought them out, and he told me 
about half the cost of a chip over its lifetime is design costs. That is, if 
you sell a total of $100million worth of CPUs over its lifetime, it costs 
about $50million to design them and $50million to manufacture and distribute 
them.

+=+=+=+

Oh, and if anyone cares, here's what the video from those glasses looks like:

http://darren.s3.amazonaws.com/PICT0001.AVI
http://darren.s3.amazonaws.com/PICT0003.AVI


-- 
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 25/01/2011 07:26 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>> Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then
>>> stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea.
>
>> I've never understood that, unless a 2MP photosensor is actually cheaper in
>> bulk than a lower quality one.
>
>    Well, as technology advances it often quite ironically happens that
> the older some technology gets, the more expensive it becomes to purchase.
> The reason is simple: Lack of demand reduces supply.

I don't recall the details now, but the other day I discovered that 
something like 128MB of PC100 RAM is more expensive than 1GB of PC3200. 
Or similar. Which is quite bizarre, really...

Alternatively, if you're actually buying PC100, it means you have 
something really critical that you need to keep working. (Rather than, 
say, just replace the damned PC.) And if it's that critical, they can 
charge you "sucker fees" (i.e., whatever they charge, you just have to 
pay it, because you need it that badly).

In general though, I was under the impression that most technologies 
don't dissappear, they just move down the food chain. For example, the 
Z80 is still in production. It's extremely popular, apparently. And 
rather cheap too. (I have no idea what the original sale price was, but 
currently it's a few quid.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In general though, I was under the impression that most technologies 
> don't dissappear, they just move down the food chain. For example, the 
> Z80 is still in production. It's extremely popular, apparently. And 
> rather cheap too. (I have no idea what the original sale price was, but 
> currently it's a few quid.)

  Intel stopped producing the 80386 a few years ago, so it does happen
with some products.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 09:22 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> In general though, I was under the impression that most technologies
>> don't dissappear, they just move down the food chain. For example, the
>> Z80 is still in production. It's extremely popular, apparently. And
>> rather cheap too. (I have no idea what the original sale price was, but
>> currently it's a few quid.)
>
>    Intel stopped producing the 80386 a few years ago, so it does happen
> with some products.

I've seen printers and so forth that use old x86 CPUs inside. I wonder 
if Intel stopped manufacturing the 386, or just licenced the design to 
somebody else?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It's extremely popular, apparently.

The Z80 is the CPU of choice for things that need a low-power CPU. Like, 
digital voice recorders, toasters, remote controls, etc.

-- 
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 25/01/2011 06:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> OK, so you can change the frequency weightings and how often a
>> keyframe is put in, and so forth. I'm not seeing much that
>> fundamentally changes the whole algorithm such that it might require
>> less computer power.
>
> Making every frame a keyframe reduces the computing and memory you need.

Presumably the bitrate is going to skyrocket if you do that though.

> Not doing motion prediction reduces how much compute power you need.

Does the standard actually allow that?

(Now that I think about it, the decoder algorithm is usually far more 
tightly specified than the encoder...)

Post a reply to this message

On 25/01/2011 06:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Ah, but what's this I see? A "privacy filter"? Yes, it's a small piece
>> of plastic which is transparent only when viewed from certain
>> directions. In other words, you stick it to your screen to reduce the
>> viewing angle. WTF, people!? :-D
>
> What part of "privacy" did you misunderstand?

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.

I'm reminded of Flanders & Swan:

   I had a little gramophone,
   I'd wind it round and round.
   And with a sharpish needle,
   It made a cheerful sound.

   And then they amplified it,
   It was much louder then.
   And you sharpened fibre needles,
   To make it soft again.

At any rate, all this device does is mean that anybody wanting to 
shoulder surf needs to stand somewhat closer to you. It doesn't 
magically stop people seeing what's on your screen, it just makes it 
mildly harder. (For *you* as well as everybody else.)

> Let me blow your mind:
>
>
http://www.dealextreme.com/p/usb-rechargeable-1-3mp-pin-hole-spy-av-camera-disguised-as-sunglasses-tf-slot-42736

An amusing novelty toy, I'm sure...

>> Quite why anybody would pay for an expensive 2MP photosensor and then
>> stick it behind a crappy 7mm lens I have no idea.
>
> I've never understood that, unless a 2MP photosensor is actually cheaper
> in bulk than a lower quality one.

Well, perhaps. I rather suspect it's because most people think the 
sensor is the *only* thing that determines picture quality, so they will 
simply buy the camera with the highest pixel rating.

(I vaguely recall somebody did an experiment that went something like 
this: Take a photograph. Make two edited copies of it. One is slightly 
sharper, the other has slightly brighter colours. Ask people which one 
they prefer. That's your control group. Now ask another bunch of people, 
but first tell them that one picture came from a 2MP camera and the 
other from an 8MP camera. Apparently the majority preferred the 8MP 
image, regardless of which one you claim to be 8MP. In other words, what 
the image actually looks like has no effect on consumer choice. People 
are stupid.)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2011 05:26 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> It's extremely popular, apparently.
>
> The Z80 is the CPU of choice for things that need a low-power CPU. Like,
> digital voice recorders, toasters, remote controls, etc.

Indeed. Apparently there's significant demand for Z80 programmers.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 06:28 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> OK, so you can change the frequency weightings and how often a
>>> keyframe is put in, and so forth. I'm not seeing much that
>>> fundamentally changes the whole algorithm such that it might require
>>> less computer power.
>>
>> Making every frame a keyframe reduces the computing and memory you need.
> 
> Presumably the bitrate is going to skyrocket if you do that though.

Yes. Or the quality sucks ass.

>> Not doing motion prediction reduces how much compute power you need.
> 
> Does the standard actually allow that?

I would think so. All you have to do is say you didn't find any motion. Or 
perhaps only look for identical pixels at the identical place (i.e., motion 
prediction of zero velocity).

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> At any rate, all this device does is mean that anybody wanting to 
> shoulder surf needs to stand somewhat closer to you. 

They need to not be behind you, is all. So, if you're a bank teller trying 
to keep the customers from peeking, or you're sitting on an airplane 
working, or ....

-- 
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 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:28:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I've seen printers and so forth that use old x86 CPUs inside.

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).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:28:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> I've seen printers and so forth that use old x86 CPUs inside.
>
> You'd be shocked to learn that 8086 and even 8085 processors are still in
> use.

Given that I said a little while ago that the Z80 is still wicked 
popular... not really, no. ;-)

As I said, products don't "die", they just move down the food chain.

Post a reply to this message

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.

(Besides, don't they insist that all electronic devices are turned off 
for the duration of the flight?)

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.

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 9:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
> (Besides, don't they insist that all electronic devices are turned off
> for the duration of the flight?)

Only during take-off and landing. During the flight you can operate 
electronic devices as long as they are in aeroplane mode. That is no 
WiFi, Bluetooth or phone transmissions.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 03:01 PM, 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.

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

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

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:52:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

There are times I'd really like that, especially flying.  :-)

>> 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.

Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net.  It 
would get an address and then immediately be dropped.  I'm guessing they 
have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various devices and 
blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people don't have to 
remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're still not allowed to 
use).

> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
> manage to phone home and leave messages?

There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used, 
and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely 
to make things worse.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 8:40 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:52:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There are times I'd really like that, especially flying.  :-)
>

I know what you mean. :-)

>> 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.
>
> Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net.  It
> would get an address and then immediately be dropped.  I'm guessing they
> have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various devices and
> blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people don't have to
> remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're still not allowed to
> use).
>
Nanny State ;-)

>> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
>> manage to phone home and leave messages?
>
> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely
> to make things worse.
>

I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:21:05 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> Yes, my phone couldn't connect to their wifi to get on the 'net.  It
>> would get an address and then immediately be dropped.  I'm guessing
>> they have something that knows the MAC address ranges for various
>> devices and blocks the ones that are cell phones - probably so people
>> don't have to remember to turn off their cell signal (which you're
>> still not allowed to use).
>>
> Nanny State ;-)

Thhhpt! :-)  Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P

>>> Which reminds me: How did the passengers on the doomed 7/11 flights
>>> manage to phone home and leave messages?
>>
>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>> likely to make things worse.
>>
> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.

I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem - the two reasons I've 
heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard fly-
by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I used 
to) and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones 
switching towers so quickly.  The latter probably isn't as big of a 
concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems 
(per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal from 
one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost immediately.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 27/01/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>>>
>> Nanny State ;-)
>
> Thhhpt! :-)  Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>

Reel it in, I've got a bite. ;-)

>> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
>
> I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem -

That surprises me.

> the two reasons I've
> heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard fly-
> by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I used
> to)

I've been in a turbine control room when someone used a hand held radio. 
The dials went round the clock and the annunciator board lit up like a 
Christmas tree. So I can see that being possible.

> and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
> switching towers so quickly.  The latter probably isn't as big of a
> concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
> (per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal from
> one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost immediately.
>

I can't see that being much of a problem to life and safety.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used, 
> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't likely 
> to make things worse.

The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of 
many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this is 
a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for routing. It 
probably has nothing to do with the actual plane electronics.

-- 
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 15:31:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>> likely to make things worse.
> 
> The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of
> many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this
> is a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for
> routing. It probably has nothing to do with the actual plane
> electronics.

Well, I do recall that the Mythbusters tested this myth, and it rated 
"plausible" with relation to the electronics.  Still, I've been on plenty 
of planes where people have not turned off their phones and they all made 
it to their destination without incident...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:06:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 27/01/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Nanny State ;-)
>>
>> Thhhpt! :-)  Technically, that's not the state, that's the airline. ;-P
>>
>>
> Reel it in, I've got a bite. ;-)
> 
>>> I'm surprised they got a signal, that's all.
>>
>> I'm not, radio coverage is generally not a problem -
> 
> That surprises me.

It would depend on the tx strength of the signal, but it doesn't surprise 
me.

What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in 
my phone is useless.

>> the two reasons I've
>> heard for turning off a cell phone are interference with the onboard
>> fly- by-wire systems (something I still doubt, though not as much as I
>> used to)
> 
> I've been in a turbine control room when someone used a hand held radio.
> The dials went round the clock and the annunciator board lit up like a
> Christmas tree. So I can see that being possible.

I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals 
flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed 
to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.

>> and because the cell towers can/used to be confused by seeing phones
>> switching towers so quickly.  The latter probably isn't as big of a
>> concern any more for the carriers, and probably doesn't cause problems
>> (per se) but just a lot of extra bandwidth used to switch the signal
>> from one tower to the next, only to have it change again almost
>> immediately.
>>
>>
> I can't see that being much of a problem to life and safety.

True.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in 
> my phone is useless.

Not all of them are. My brother has a trace from his exercize watch that 
shows him flying across country.

> I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals 
> flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed 
> to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.

Especially that in which the general public will be flying. I'm not 
surprised there are industrial settings where following the rules is more 
important than in an airplane passenger compartment.

-- 
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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:31:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> There's probably nothing that prevents the cell signal from being used,
>>> and if the plane is already doomed, turning on a cell phone isn't
>>> likely to make things worse.
>> The primary reason not to do this is that your phone will be in range of
>> many more towers than you normally would be. For some cell systems, this
>> is a Bad Thing, for performance, capacity, and possibly even for
>> routing. It probably has nothing to do with the actual plane
>> electronics.
> 
> Well, I do recall that the Mythbusters tested this myth, and it rated 
> "plausible" with relation to the electronics.  Still, I've been on plenty 
> of planes where people have not turned off their phones and they all made 
> it to their destination without incident...

Um, yeah. That's waht I was saying. It's not a problem for the airplane. 
It's a problem for the phone carriers.

-- 
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 27/01/2011 11:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:06:53 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>

>> That surprises me.
>
> It would depend on the tx strength of the signal, but it doesn't surprise
> me.
>

In the UK, you’re lucky if you can get reception in a park never mind a 
plane.

> What does surprise me is that in a moving aircraft, the GPS receiver in
> my phone is useless.
>

Never tried. Any excuse to switch it off.


>
> I could as well, but then again, there are lots of wireless signals
> flying around in open space, but I would expect something that's designed
> to fly through the air to have some shielding against it.
>

OK these were handhelds with power to reach the horizon.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message