|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#531
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking Outside The Box
An hour? Even with the screen closed? I guess I'll find out as a friend
soaked his iPhone sailing and switched to Android. I have the original Motorola Android phone. Later models may be better. I think the feeling of the designers was that the GPS was something you'd use in the car so little effort was made in reducing GPS power consumption. I have an HTC Incredible and can track with GPS for 8 - 10 hours if I have the screen off and also go into Airplane mode (have done this backpacking where cell coverage is poor and I don't want to be bothered anyway). By the way, some Motorola phones have a bug where the GPS will not get an initial fix without a data connection: http://www.gpsairtime.com . |
Ads |
#532
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking Outside The Box
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:09:51 -0400, "Bertrand"
wrote: An hour? Even with the screen closed? I guess I'll find out as a friend soaked his iPhone sailing and switched to Android. I have the original Motorola Android phone. Later models may be better. I think the feeling of the designers was that the GPS was something you'd use in the car so little effort was made in reducing GPS power consumption. I have an HTC Incredible and can track with GPS for 8 - 10 hours if I have the screen off and also go into Airplane mode (have done this backpacking where cell coverage is poor and I don't want to be bothered anyway). By the way, some Motorola phones have a bug where the GPS will not get an initial fix without a data connection: http://www.gpsairtime.com . Yet another thing I hadn't thought of. Thanks. -- Cheers, John B. |
#533
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking Outside The Box
On Mar 5, 4:13 am, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 19:01:35 -0800 (PST), Dan O wrote: On Mar 4, 4:46 pm, John B. wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:57:35 -0800 (PST), Dan O wrote: On Mar 4, 3:02 am, John B. wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 21:27:48 -0800 (PST), Dan O wrote: On Mar 3, 4:56 pm, John B. wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:35:30 -0800 (PST), Dan O wrote: On Mar 3, 10:34 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: Dan O wrote: I am totally into getting along. I'm just not into conformity simply to please somebody else's sensibility. Example: I'm riding into town on a country road. Past the high school, a pickup truck passes me - exhibiting a little contempt (you know what I mean). He stops at the stop sign, but knowing that I'm coming up behind on th eroad edge, he pulls all the way to the right edge of the road to block me, then waits at the stop sign. I go off road, pass him on the right, have already scoped out the absence of other traffic, pedestrians, critters, etc., and roll on past him though the stop. You know what comes next, right? "HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNKKK!!!" Then he pulls away and down the road into town (not having a shot at me, because I am not about to give him one after ****ing him off like that, and I've cut through the church parking lot. But I follow him into a town and he stops at the post office, where I ask him what's his problem. He says, "You don't know?" - "No." - "You should have stopped at that stop sign." - "Why?" - "You don't know?!" - "No, tell me." - (now utterly indreduous), "If you don't know... " - (apparently he doesn't really know, either - except that the sign says so). Hmm. You really think that was productive? I think it was illustrative. Had someone done that in a pickup truck would it have been equally illustrative? ... Oh, you mean had someone driven their pickup truck off the edge of the road, passed other traffic sitting at the stop, and rolled their pickup truck into the intersection without stopping? I think the reasons that it's much more okay to blow stops on a bicycle than in a pickup truck are many and well established. And of course this doesn't give the pickup guy the impression that bicycle riders are people that don't respect the same laws, that he, in his pickup has to? Nor does it cause the guy to think, "just another asshole cyclist"? And if that is what he thinks, I wonder whether he may be tempted to treat bikes as "just another asshole"? He may, and many will, but that is not at all reasonable, and not at all my fault. No, and I didn't intend to imply it was. I was merely suggesting that acts by bicycle riders may not be without effect upon others. Everyone scurries about saying "Oh! Riding to work is so enlightening" and never seems to say, "but be sure to obey traffic regulations and don't ride as though you are the only one on the road." Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? True. But then again one should be intelligent enough to know whether one is breaking the law, or not. While it is likely that one won't advertise the fact to all and sundry, still the inability to differentiate right and wrong is a valid defense in a criminal case - innocent by reason of insanity. Speaking of peace and love, Ringo Starr is bringing it to music shows this summer. In a short Rolling Stone interview (OTTOMH, may be paraphrased): Rolling Stone: So [your recent recording] speaks of "breaking the rules" as a kid. Were you actually breaking thw law? Ringo: In which way? Rolling Stone: In the law way. Ringo: What the hell does that mean, "In the law way"? (It don't come easy :-) |
#534
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking Outside The Box
On Mar 5, 6:31 pm, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:03:24 -0800 wrote: On Mar 5, 4:17 am, John B. wrote: On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 22:44:01 -0800 wrote: snip Well, I didn't discuss it very deeply, but the gist of it is - whatever my rights under law - I can't *really* go around saying three- quarters of the stuff that I say here in front of just anybody without potential for reprisals that make me keep my mouth shut - "subjection of free will to the mores of society". Not as you describe it. What you are describing isfreedomfor both parties. You are free to say what you want and your opponent is free to react to it in the manner he feels fit. The fact that you get slapped silly a few times and learn when it is safe to open your mouth and when it is not has nothing to do with yourfreedomto say what you want. "Even if public manners are fairly relaxed and open, they can permit the exposure of only a small fraction of what people are feeling. Toleration of what people choose to do or say can go only so far: To really accept people as they are requires an understanding that there is much more to them than could possibly be integrated into a common social space. The single most important fact to keep in mind in connection with this topic is that each of the multifarious individual souls is an enormous and complex world in itself, but the social space into which they must all fit is severely limited. What is admitted into that space has to be constrained both to avoid crowding and to prevent conflict and offense. Only so much freedom is compatible with public order: The bulk of toleration must be extended to the private sphere, which will then be left in all its variety behind the protective cover of public conventions of reticence and discretion." |
#535
|
|||
|
|||
Thinking Outside The Box
ANOTHER ATF
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thinking about seeing the '09 TdF? | Mike Jacoubowsky | Racing | 25 | October 14th 08 09:26 PM |
wonder what he was thinking? | [email protected] | Racing | 2 | July 28th 06 12:22 PM |
Thinking about getting a 24" Qu-ax.. | fcwegnm0b | Unicycling | 1 | May 19th 05 01:37 AM |
Whatever Were They Thinking?? | NYC XYZ | General | 0 | March 17th 05 03:58 PM |
What were they thinking of? | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 46 | July 2nd 04 04:49 PM |