From: No spam please on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article
> <bcaa3e16-6557-4fdb-9208-b1ccdb0770e1(a)>,
> -hh <recscuba_google(a)> wrote:
< snip >

> lastly, unsecured devices can become projectiles in the event something
> goes wrong. a laptop flying through the cabin can *hurt*. they also
> need to be stowed so people can quickly exit if necessary.

Hello again. I remember one flight on a 737 where we were delayed for an
hour on the apron. A couple opposite me decided to get a bag out of the
overhead locker.
The aircraft hadn't moved but they managed to swing their own bag down out
of the locker and hit someone in the head with it. Fortunately, they'd
disturbed another bag which hit one of the couple on the head and they all
sat down to reflect on gravity.

I've seen similar happenings on the more humble trains here in the UK.
Gravity and inertia usually win.
Regards, Rog.

From: Dudley Hanks on
>> Kinda funny about the Ford decision. Imagine them trying to market their
>> products to blind people. LOL .... Sounds pretty desperate to me. I can
>> see
>> the news now, "Film at 11: Ford, in an act of desperation, is trying to
>> market their cars to blind people."
>> Whups! There goes what's left of their stock. Maybe Obama stealing from
>> all
>> tax-payers will bail them out again.
>> And we'll only have you to blame for pity-manipulating a few Ford execs
>> because of your misplaced desperate need for attention.
>> It always all starts with one idiot with skewed self-serving intentions.

Actually, it usually starts with an idiot who can't get his facts straight:

"It should come as no surprise, as Rasmussen Reports said Tuesday, that the
recent government bailouts of General Motors and the Chrysler Corporation
have affected public attitudes toward the U.S. automakers. But rather than
pitch in to help the struggling manufacturers continue to stay afloat, 46
percent of Americans indicated to Rasmussen that they were more likely to
buy a new car from Ford-if they were, in fact, buying a new car-because it
did not take government money in order to keep its doors open.

Call it a competitive advantage for Ford. By staying away from the bailout,
the company has potentially increased its share of the market place by a
significant amount, especially among those who insist on "buying America" as
a political statement."

If you ever hope to be taken with even a minute amount of credibility, pay
attention to what's going on around you...

Take Care,

From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on

� "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> ������ ��� ������
> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:021120090951498171%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>> In article <hcmcdu$1foi$4(a)>, No spam please
>> <me(a)> wrote:
>>> A search to find articles about Ryanair in the newspapers will give you
>>> some
>>> amusement.
>>> There's a rumour that they may charge passengers to use the aircraft's
>>> toilet.
>> it was mostly a publicity stunt. they aren't charging to pee.
> Remember when they tried paid public toilets? What was that? Late '70s?
> Early '80s?
> Shall we say the public got so pissed off they had to flush the whole
> idea?
In Germany, there were during the '80s (West Germany) paid toilets, you had
to insert a 10 pfennig coin for the door to open. I don't know what happens
now, I've not been to Germany for more than 15 years.

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

From: nospam on
In article <hcn098$2m11$1(a)>, No spam please
<me(a)> wrote:

> Ah yes - the first telephoto zoom was manual focus. Focussing the lens
> wasn't a problem but metering was. Not all the metering modes worked with
> the lens.

metering will be completely manual. however, with digital at least you
can see the results and adjust if necessary.

> Friend has now acquired a new Nikon telephoto zoom so everything works as
> expected.
> I agree that a 3oomm lens isn't ideal for bird photography. Personally, I'd
> love a fast 400mm but the cost, size and weight are beyond me. I'll try
> another way - remote controlled camera and a carefully set-up perch for the
> birds.

there's nothing wrong with using a zoom lens for bird photography. the
problem is you said cheap and that pretty much limits it to 200mm which
won't get you very close. longer lenses get very expensive.
From: nospam on
In article <hcmtu60mss(a)>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote:

> > the leakage from the radio is not only far from the avionics in the
> > cockpit,
> That may be but the antennas for those avionics are _not_ in the cockpit.

the antennas aren't under the passenger's seat. they're typically in
the nose cone or somewhere on the outside of the plane on bottom of the
fuselage, which means there's a lot of metal and the entire baggage
compartment between the antenna and passenger, along with a bunch of

> > but more importantly, the plane encounters *far* stronger
> > sources of interference such as flying over a city with commercial
> > broadcast towers which pump out thousands of watts of radio and tv as
> > well as cellphone towers, public safety two-way radios, etc.
> And how many of those sources are two feet from an antenna on the airplane?

it doesn't matter. tv & radio stations pump out enough power to carry
the signal 50-100 miles. compare that to the leakage from some device
which probably can't even be detected past a few feet, let alone
interfere with anything.

> > if there actually was a risk, all electronics would be banned.
> Can you prove that there is not a risk? Are you willing to pay the lawsuit
> and write the letters to the families of the dead if it turns out that you
> are wrong?

can you prove there *is* a risk? on every flight there's probably
someone who forgot to turn off their cellphone or other electronic
device. multiply that by the number of flights per day. there are a
*lot* of flights with electronics that are still on during takeoff and
landing, and planes aren't falling from the skies.