Time to stop flying?

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They never used them much in the US domestically either, which is why
Continental pulled them all out.

The situation may change dramatically if the system allows incoming calls
to
personal cell phones.

This will still be very expensive.

You have to have a reason to make a call. For most people the situation
will never occur where they have to make an outgoing call during the flight,
that couldn't have been made before they left (or wait until the arrive).
However, external factors could easily occur which requires the need to make
an incoming call to someone on the plane.

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:25:05 on Tue, 8
Apr 2008, William Black remarked:
What will make me happy is [...] the ability to use my
camera-phone to take pictures out of the window.

Wouldn't any ol' camera do?

Travelling by plane is bad enough without carrying an excessive number
of
"gadgets", when you have one already.

You put a camera in your hold baggage?

No, I don't take a separate camera because I have camera-phone.

Camera phones take rubbish pictures.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

tim (not at home) wrote:

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They never used them much in the US domestically either, which is why
Continental pulled them all out.

The situation may change dramatically if the system allows incoming calls
to
personal cell phones.

This will still be very expensive.

You have to have a reason to make a call. For most people the situation
will never occur where they have to make an outgoing call during the flight,
that couldn't have been made before they left (or wait until the arrive).
However, external factors could easily occur which requires the need to make
an incoming call to someone on the plane.

For which it still seems like a non-starter at the moment. Depending on
where you're flying, the amount of time on the plane for which you're
actually above 3000m might be quite small. If the call is to be to your
mobile, it will require a whole list of roaming agreements. Given the
cost of the calls, I suspect most people will keep their phone switched
off, rather than have to pay a ton to receive a few calls that could
have waited until they landed, which would still be the majority of most
calls.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

In message , at 12:57:28 on Tue,
8 Apr 2008, William Black remarked:

Camera phones take rubbish pictures.

In some conditions, yes. But a 2MP picture in daylight is perfectly
acceptable. He's a popular one I've posted to Panoramio, view at full
screen for best effect:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

On the other hand here's a pretty awful one (too much digital zoom):

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560909

.... but it's still better than not having taken it (and I really *don't*
want to carry a camera with me everywhere I go).
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:57:28 on Tue, 8
Apr 2008, William Black remarked:

Camera phones take rubbish pictures.

In some conditions, yes. But a 2MP picture in daylight is perfectly
acceptable. He's a popular one I've posted to Panoramio, view at full
screen for best effect:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

My God, sir, you nearly startled me.
And there was I thinking, my what progress in the Western Isles since I was
last there!

Gerry

In message , at 13:41:40 on Tue, 8
Apr 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift remarked:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6560957

My God, sir, you nearly startled me.
And there was I thinking, my what progress in the Western Isles since I was
last there!

Barra da Tijuca. But the locals seem to call it just "Barra".
--
Roland Perry

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:39:51 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
JohnT writes:

In the UK/Europe?

The FAA and FCC have jurisdiction only in the U.S.


Precisely. You posted a claim of FAA/FCC jurisdiction to a UK Newsgroup.

It's good that us oldies can remember the context that he snips. It makes
him
look a prat, but what's new?
--

Martin




--

JohnT

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:39:51 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
JohnT writes:

In the UK/Europe?

The FAA and FCC have jurisdiction only in the U.S.


Precisely. You posted a claim of FAA/FCC jurisdiction to a UK Newsgroup.

It's good that us oldies can remember the context that he snips. It makes
him
look a prat, but what's new?


I was about to observe that you and I have probably forgotten more than Mixi
has ever learned but, on reflection I won't make that claim because I really
don't think that he ever learned anything.
--

JohnT

Martin wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:06:28 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

tim (not at home) wrote:

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They never used them much in the US domestically either, which is why
Continental pulled them all out.

The situation may change dramatically if the system allows incoming
calls to personal cell phones.

This will still be very expensive.

You have to have a reason to make a call. For most people the
situation will never occur where they have to make an outgoing call
during the flight, that couldn't have been made before they left (or
wait until the arrive). However, external factors could easily occur
which requires the need to make an incoming call to someone on the
plane.

For which it still seems like a non-starter at the moment. Depending on
where you're flying, the amount of time on the plane for which you're
actually above 3000m might be quite small.

You are joking?

No.

I've only once flown from Heathrow to Schiphol at below 10,000
feet and that was because there was severe turbulence at higher altitudes.

The aircraft needs to taxi, ascend to 10,000 after takeoff, then descend
from 10,000 to ground level. Just the taxi time at Heathrow can equal
the amount of time you'll be above 10,000 on such a flight. During all
of this time, you won't be allowed to use your phone, making the 'I have
to be reached in an emergency' idea a bit of a moot point.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins

Martin wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:19:11 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

Martin wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:06:28 +0100, (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:
[]
For which it still seems like a non-starter at the moment. Depending on
where you're flying, the amount of time on the plane for which you're
actually above 3000m might be quite small.

You are joking?

No.

I've only once flown from Heathrow to Schiphol at below 10,000
feet and that was because there was severe turbulence at higher altitudes.

The aircraft needs to taxi, ascend to 10,000 after takeoff, then descend
from 10,000 to ground level. Just the taxi time at Heathrow can equal
the amount of time you'll be above 10,000 on such a flight.

This very much depends where you are flying to.

That's what I said above!

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins