>> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
>>
>> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
>> the window @ any price.

I love looking out of the window, you get other planes whizzing past at 
differential speeds of 1200 mph, get to see mountain ranges and anything 
from tiny isolated houses up to huge cities from above, get to watch all 
the control surfaces moving on the wing during the different phases of 
the flight. A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch 
how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600 
mph :-)

Saying that though I always take the aisle seat on long haul flights as 
I prefer to be free to walk about whenever I want without disturbing 
others. Up to 2-3 hours I can manage to stay in my seat.

> In all seriousness... I had no idea clouds come in so many different
> shapes until I saw them from above.

That too, some of the sites are beautiful especially when the sun is 
near the horizon. It's inspired me on several occasions to crack out POV 
and play with media (and usually fail miserably).

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely a TV screen is way, *way* cheaper then nerve implant surgery?
>
> I was more thinking it would be used where it was not practical to have
> a TV or display, (eg a solider in the field, or a spy that didn't want
> others to know what they were doing).
>
> Still, if there is a demand and the implant process is developed then I
> don't see a reason why it should remain expensive, after all it's just
> going to be a chip and a few wires :-)

...and a team of highly trained experts to implant the thing, who have 
to be insured against being sued for causing death or serious injury...

Post a reply to this message

>> Still, if there is a demand and the implant process is developed then I
>> don't see a reason why it should remain expensive, after all it's just
>> going to be a chip and a few wires :-)
>
> ...and a team of highly trained experts to implant the thing, who have
> to be insured against being sued for causing death or serious injury...

"developed" as in developed enough so that a team of highly trained 
experts are not needed and the chance of success is pretty much 
guaranteed. Obviously that is not the case at the moment, but it never 
is with new techniques.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
> >>
> >> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
> >> the window @ any price.
>
> I love looking out of the window, you get other planes whizzing past at
> differential speeds of 1200 mph, get to see mountain ranges and anything
> from tiny isolated houses up to huge cities from above, get to watch all
> the control surfaces moving on the wing during the different phases of
> the flight.

I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.

> A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch
> how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600
> mph :-)
>

It is only recently that you have been able to switch your phone on during
flights. So how do you know? ^^


> Saying that though I always take the aisle seat on long haul flights as
> I prefer to be free to walk about whenever I want without disturbing
> others. Up to 2-3 hours I can manage to stay in my seat.
>


as well. There is more legroom and you get first go on the chute. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
> through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
> down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.

At least you hadn't taken off yet, the pilot would have hopefully 
figured out they didn't have enough thrust before getting to V1 :-) I 
saw a lightning strike on the wing tip once, it was a fairly subdued 
bang and I don't think anyone else really noticed. I didn't think 
anything of it until another flight which was delayed because they were 
"checking the plane over as it got struck by lightning on the way in".

>> A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch
>> how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600
>> mph :-)
>
> It is only recently that you have been able to switch your phone on during
> flights. So how do you know? ^^

This was a standalone navigation unit. I think you've been able to use 
your phone with the radio turned off for a long time haven't you? The 
recent change AFAIK is just that you can use it during take-off and 
landing (but still the radio must be off). But I don't fly as much now 
so am not really up to speed with this stuff.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
> > through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
> > down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.
>
> At least you hadn't taken off yet, the pilot would have hopefully
> figured out they didn't have enough thrust before getting to V1 :-)

We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
quietened the plane down a bit.

> I saw a lightning strike on the wing tip once, it was a fairly subdued
> bang and I don't think anyone else really noticed.

I bet the instruments showed something.

>I didn't think
> anything of it until another flight which was delayed because they were
> "checking the plane over as it got struck by lightning on the way in".
>

A friend was in a helicopter when it was struck by lightning. They were close to
shore and ditched on a sandbank. The rotor blades were frayed as its layers were
coming apart. But that is supposed to be unusual.


> This was a standalone navigation unit.
Okay, you are forgiven. ;-)

> I think you've been able to use
> your phone with the radio turned off for a long time haven't you?

In airplane mode, yes. But until January it had to be off during takeoff and
landing.

>The
> recent change AFAIK is just that you can use it during take-off and
> landing (but still the radio must be off). But I don't fly as much now
> so am not really up to speed with this stuff.

Now you can use a phone or laptop with the radio off but no headphones until the
seatbelt light goes off.

Post a reply to this message

> We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
> guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
> quietened the plane down a bit.

Oh OK that makes it a bit scarier - I thought you meant you were taxiing 
:-) I know planes are meant to be able to fly with one failed engine 
(assuming they have more than one obviously) but you really don't want 
that happening so close to the ground...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
> > guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
> > quietened the plane down a bit.
>
> Oh OK that makes it a bit scarier - I thought you meant you were taxiing
> :-) I know planes are meant to be able to fly with one failed engine
> (assuming they have more than one obviously) but you really don't want
> that happening so close to the ground...

No, my taxiing story is when I was in a helicopter by a window. When I saw oil
streaming down it. Yup, off with the seat belt and leaned into the cabin to tell
the crew. (A filler cap had been left untightened.) Or the friend whose chopper
was hit by lightning also had the joy of sitting next to the door when it fell
off. (I never liked to travel with him, BTW)

Post a reply to this message

> On 21/02/2014 07:55 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
>>>> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
>>>> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's
>>>> nothing to
>>>> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto
>>>> the optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>>>
>>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>>
>> Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course
>> that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers
>> would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.
>
> I know audio nerve stimulation is a real thing that they've actually
> tried to do. Of course, it's hard to tell how well it actually works...

"Tried" to do?

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I know audio nerve stimulation is a real thing that they've actually
>> tried to do. Of course, it's hard to tell how well it actually works...
>
> "Tried" to do?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

As I say, it's difficult to decide how well it actually works. "Up to 22 
electrodes" hardly compares to the several *million* nerve endings that 
were there to start with. Short of deliberately making yourself deaf and 
then installing one of these, it's difficult to figure out what this 
sounds like to a person who knows what real sound is like.

Doing this with the eye would be a harder problem. (Although *actually* 
the human eye doesn't have nearly the resolving power you think it does; 
the crystal-clear high-resolution 3-dimensional image you perceive is 
actually due to sophisticated signal processing rather than precision 
optics.)

Having said all that, there was an experiment where subjects slowly 
learned to "see" using their tongue. Experimenters placed electrodes 
onto the tongue [which is naturally bathed in suitable electrolytes], 
and projected a very low-resolution image onto them. Eventually subjects 
learned to walk around without bumping into objects, and to have some 
idea where the hell they're going. Weird, but true... I think they call 
it "neuroplasticity".

Post a reply to this message