PIREP - EnV Smart Phone

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

My old cell phone was on its last legs. I had twice given my "free
upgrades" to my kids so they could get the "latest-greatest" music-enabled
whiz phones, so my old phone was...just a phone. It looked like a hockey
puck after a full season on the ice, with hardly any paint left on it, and
the sound quality was starting to go.

So, when my "free upgrade" came up again, off to the Verizon store I went.
I wanted something with a built-in planner, something WITHOUT a touch screen
(my son's experience with his "Chocolate" taught me that lesson), and a
decent built-in camera. The LG EnV was the one I settled on.

The EnV has all the features of their top-of-the-line "Voyager", but without
the problematic touch screen. The feature list is quite impressive, but the
ones that are most pertinent to aviators are:

1. GPS
2. Internet access.

1. GPS. I had heard that cell phones were GPS enabled, but I didn't know
how far they had come. The EnV has two LCD screens. The one on the outside
is standard "cell-phone" size, but it opens up to display a much larger
internal LCD screen that is actually a bit bigger than the one in my Garmin
496. The navigational interface is easy and intuitive, and all you have to
do is enter an address (or point of interest) in and let the phone give you
street-by-street driving instructions, complete with a moving map.

Cooler yet, with the bluetooth earpiece, the little voice in your ear TELLS
YOU "turn left, 300 yards". It's quite remarkable.

Better yet, it's NOT really GPS, which requires a clear view of the sky.
The phone is actually more like LORAN, using cell towers to triangulate your
position against its internal database of the world. Thus, it works
indoors, and there's no need to position the thing on the dashboard. No
power cords, not antenna wires. Very nice.

I presume that it can't be used in the air, but it's sure making finding our
way around a strange city easier after we arrive.

(Yes, the 496 has turn-by-turn driving capability, too, but in practice
we've found that we just don't take it with us when we borrow the courtesy
car. The 496 is just too futzy to take out of the panel dock, and we never
seem to remember to bring the little bean-bag dashboard mount and the little
antenna. And, of course, you can't leave a $3K GPS sitting on the dash of a
clapped-out old police cruiser, so we're always trying to lock it in the
trunk.

The EnV, on the other hand, is always on my belt, so we're using it all the
time.)

2. Internet Access.
I used to subscribe to a cell phone weather service that gave me access to
radar and satellite info, as well as METARS and TAFs. It cost the same per
month as full web-access does on this phone -- and now I can get much of the
same weather as I can on any computer.

When you open the EnV it's got a full QWERTY keyboard that makes entering
data easy. That big (relatively speaking) color screen makes viewing easy,
and I'm surprised at how quickly the web loads. Verizon has invested
heavily in improving the speed of mobile web applications, and it shows.

There are a host of other great features (the planner is terrific, the
camera is very good, the 2 GB memory card holds lots of pix and video, it
can record digital audio for hours, it's a very nice speaker phone) that I
use daily, and a bunch I may never use (texting, iPod-like music, etc) but
the future really is NOW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22...
> My old cell phone was on its last legs. I had twice given my "free
> upgrades" to my kids so they could get the "latest-greatest" music-enabled
> whiz phones, so my old phone was...just a phone. It looked like a hockey
> puck after a full season on the ice, with hardly any paint left on it, and
> the sound quality was starting to go.
>
> So, when my "free upgrade" came up again, off to the Verizon store I went.
> I wanted something with a built-in planner, something WITHOUT a touch
> screen (my son's experience with his "Chocolate" taught me that lesson),
> and a decent built-in camera. The LG EnV was the one I settled on.
>
> The EnV has all the features of their top-of-the-line "Voyager", but
> without the problematic touch screen. The feature list is quite
> impressive, but the ones that are most pertinent to aviators are:

[clip]

I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that the
LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0. In other
words, you can see most HTM-based web pages in a usable (albeit slow)
manner. The touch screen is pretty good and compares closer to the iPhone
than the Chocolate. CNET compared the iPhone and Voyager and the Voyager
edged-out the iPhone overall but lost in the touch screen category.

I personally refuse to pay $10 a month for the GPS--especially when I, like
you, put out the cash for the Garmin 496. I've used the 496 in automotive
mode a number of times during both aviation and non-aviation trips and it
definitely does the job. I would feel like I wasted some of the extra $$ I
spent on the 496 over the 396 if I didn't use it for auto guidance during
aviation trips.

Back to the Voyager though. With the HTML web access (which is $9 more a
month than the Mobile Web 2.0 access, is unlimited, and includes the vCast
package) you can get access to many more weather sites (except ADDS'
java-based applications). I still have the airwx.com as my favorite but
having the others as a cross-check is excellent.

I also can get to my job's Outlook Webmail (dodging the Blackberry bullet).

I'm really happy with my Voyager (so far).

Marco

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that the
> LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0. In other
> words, you can see most HTM-based web pages in a usable (albeit slow)
> manner. The touch screen is pretty good and compares closer to the iPhone
> than the Chocolate. CNET compared the iPhone and Voyager and the Voyager
> edged-out the iPhone overall but lost in the touch screen category.

I found the "real" internet interface to be too slow for practical use, at
least around here. (Maybe your uplink speed is faster in your market?)
Mobile Web lets me access pared-down versions of many web pages quickly and
in a way that better-fits the diminutive screens these smart phones possess.
I'm able to access my email, ADDS weather, and a gazillion other websites
using the EnV, so I'm satisfied with it.

As for the touch screen, Joe has had endless troubles with his Chocolate's
touch screen. It's just too easy to hit the wrong thing, and the screen
itself is very vulnerable. I'm hard on phones, since they hang from my belt
and I'm constantly up on ladders and moving heavy stuff around the hotel, so
I didn't want that pretty screen hanging out in the open. Because of this I
opted for the non-touch-screen version, and trust that I won't destroy it
quite as easily.

> I personally refuse to pay $10 a month for the GPS--especially when I,
> like you, put out the cash for the Garmin 496. I've used the 496 in
> automotive mode a number of times during both aviation and non-aviation
> trips and it definitely does the job. I would feel like I wasted some of
> the extra $$ I spent on the 496 over the 396 if I didn't use it for auto
> guidance during aviation trips.

My package combines GPS and Mobile Web, so the GPS is essentially free.

As for the 496, I've felt like I wasted $3K buying it virtually from Day One
of owning it, so I'm used to feeling ripped off. It's a barely adequate GPS
that happens to provide the only decent on-board weather interface
available. XM makes it worth putting up with...for now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steve Foley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22...


> When you open the EnV it's got a full QWERTY keyboard that makes entering
> data easy.

And in the hands of a 15 year old, the EnV is capable of sending over 1500
text messages per month.

I got an EnV for my son's 15th birthday. I tried using it for one day, but
couldn't see who was calling me. The (outside) screen isn't made for 46 year
old eyes.


Upgrade phone to EnV: $50

Monthly charge for five lines $99

Look on 15 year old's face when he realizes he has to work ANOTHER 14
Saturday's to pay off his text messaging bill: Priceless

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22:

> My old cell phone was on its last legs.


Much like your brain.

Pirep? You really are the daftest fjukkwit I've ever seen. And that's
saying something.


Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Marco Leon schrieb:
> I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that the
> LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0.

what's internet on a mobile phone these days in the US? Do you already
have UMTS, HDSPA and all the fancy stuff? Or is it still 2G (Edge et al)?

#m

[Big John]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:26:28 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that the
>> LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0. In other
>> words, you can see most HTM-based web pages in a usable (albeit slow)
>> manner. The touch screen is pretty good and compares closer to the iPhone
>> than the Chocolate. CNET compared the iPhone and Voyager and the Voyager
>> edged-out the iPhone overall but lost in the touch screen category.
>
>I found the "real" internet interface to be too slow for practical use, at
>least around here. (Maybe your uplink speed is faster in your market?)
>Mobile Web lets me access pared-down versions of many web pages quickly and
>in a way that better-fits the diminutive screens these smart phones possess.
>I'm able to access my email, ADDS weather, and a gazillion other websites
>using the EnV, so I'm satisfied with it.
>
>As for the touch screen, Joe has had endless troubles with his Chocolate's
>touch screen. It's just too easy to hit the wrong thing, and the screen
>itself is very vulnerable. I'm hard on phones, since they hang from my belt
>and I'm constantly up on ladders and moving heavy stuff around the hotel, so
>I didn't want that pretty screen hanging out in the open. Because of this I
>opted for the non-touch-screen version, and trust that I won't destroy it
>quite as easily.
>
>> I personally refuse to pay $10 a month for the GPS--especially when I,
>> like you, put out the cash for the Garmin 496. I've used the 496 in
>> automotive mode a number of times during both aviation and non-aviation
>> trips and it definitely does the job. I would feel like I wasted some of
>> the extra $$ I spent on the 496 over the 396 if I didn't use it for auto
>> guidance during aviation trips.
>
>My package combines GPS and Mobile Web, so the GPS is essentially free.
>
>As for the 496, I've felt like I wasted $3K buying it virtually from Day One
>of owning it, so I'm used to feeling ripped off. It's a barely adequate GPS
>that happens to provide the only decent on-board weather interface
>available. XM makes it worth putting up with...for now.


Jay

I had trouble with cell phones 'on my belt' (had a couple come off and
lost) so got a neck strap and hang around my neck with phone laying on
my chest or stuck in my shirt pocket if shirt has one. If I am working
around rotating machinery or doing anything that the phone and strap
could get caught in I just slip the phone down the neck of my shirt
until I get back to my normal days activity. Works for me :o)

My phone is a flip top with cover and screen doesn't get dinged inside
my shirt or in shirt pocket.

Big John

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Marco Leon schrieb:
>> I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that
>> the LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0.
>
> what's internet on a mobile phone these days in the US? Do you already
> have UMTS, HDSPA and all the fancy stuff? Or is it still 2G (Edge et al)?
>
> #m

My iPhone is Edge but it is also WiFi and there is almost no place I use
the internet capability that isn't near an open WiFi Node so I almost
never use the Edge part of the phone.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> And in the hands of a 15 year old, the EnV is capable of sending over 1500
> text messages per month.

Despite incessant begging from two teenagers, I continue to not allow
texting on any of our cell phones.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:_P5Sj.90038$TT4.89932@attbi_s22:

>> And in the hands of a 15 year old, the EnV is capable of sending over
>> 1500 text messages per month.
>
> Despite incessant begging from two teenagers, I continue to not allow
> texting on any of our cell phones.

Jerkoff.


Bertie

[BT]

I picked up the EnV two months ago for just that reason, Web2.0 with
DUAT/Mobile, and ability to get otehr Aviation WX, NOTAMS etc.
That and text and pictures to back east while planning a wedding.

Also in remote areas out west, you may not get a good enough signal for a
voice connection, but data (text message) can get through in a blink. That
PIREP to home half way through a long trip is a nice contact when you
launched at o'dark thirty before anyone was up.
Text, NxxCF, 12K MSL, (location) (time) eta (time), send.

Flying gliders, and land out, can barely connect with voice, but a data text
transmission gets through.
Text, NxxFC, Nxx-xxx, Wxxx-xxx, (time) ALL OK, send
or instead of N/W coordinates, send airport 3 letter ID if you actually
landed on an airport.

B

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22...
> My old cell phone was on its last legs. I had twice given my "free
> upgrades" to my kids so they could get the "latest-greatest" music-enabled
> whiz phones, so my old phone was...just a phone. It looked like a hockey
> puck after a full season on the ice, with hardly any paint left on it, and
> the sound quality was starting to go.
>
> So, when my "free upgrade" came up again, off to the Verizon store I went.
> I wanted something with a built-in planner, something WITHOUT a touch
> screen (my son's experience with his "Chocolate" taught me that lesson),
> and a decent built-in camera. The LG EnV was the one I settled on.
>
> The EnV has all the features of their top-of-the-line "Voyager", but
> without the problematic touch screen. The feature list is quite
> impressive, but the ones that are most pertinent to aviators are:
>
> 1. GPS
> 2. Internet access.
>
> 1. GPS. I had heard that cell phones were GPS enabled, but I didn't know
> how far they had come. The EnV has two LCD screens. The one on the
> outside is standard "cell-phone" size, but it opens up to display a much
> larger internal LCD screen that is actually a bit bigger than the one in
> my Garmin 496. The navigational interface is easy and intuitive, and all
> you have to do is enter an address (or point of interest) in and let the
> phone give you street-by-street driving instructions, complete with a
> moving map.
>
> Cooler yet, with the bluetooth earpiece, the little voice in your ear
> TELLS YOU "turn left, 300 yards". It's quite remarkable.
>
> Better yet, it's NOT really GPS, which requires a clear view of the sky.
> The phone is actually more like LORAN, using cell towers to triangulate
> your position against its internal database of the world. Thus, it works
> indoors, and there's no need to position the thing on the dashboard. No
> power cords, not antenna wires. Very nice.
>
> I presume that it can't be used in the air, but it's sure making finding
> our way around a strange city easier after we arrive.
>
> (Yes, the 496 has turn-by-turn driving capability, too, but in practice
> we've found that we just don't take it with us when we borrow the courtesy
> car. The 496 is just too futzy to take out of the panel dock, and we
> never seem to remember to bring the little bean-bag dashboard mount and
> the little antenna. And, of course, you can't leave a $3K GPS sitting on
> the dash of a clapped-out old police cruiser, so we're always trying to
> lock it in the trunk.
>
> The EnV, on the other hand, is always on my belt, so we're using it all
> the time.)
>
> 2. Internet Access.
> I used to subscribe to a cell phone weather service that gave me access to
> radar and satellite info, as well as METARS and TAFs. It cost the same
> per month as full web-access does on this phone -- and now I can get much
> of the same weather as I can on any computer.
>
> When you open the EnV it's got a full QWERTY keyboard that makes entering
> data easy. That big (relatively speaking) color screen makes viewing
> easy, and I'm surprised at how quickly the web loads. Verizon has
> invested heavily in improving the speed of mobile web applications, and it
> shows.
>
> There are a host of other great features (the planner is terrific, the
> camera is very good, the 2 GB memory card holds lots of pix and video, it
> can record digital audio for hours, it's a very nice speaker phone) that I
> use daily, and a bunch I may never use (texting, iPod-like music, etc) but
> the future really is NOW.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22:
>
>> My old cell phone was on its last legs.
>
>
> Much like your brain.
>
> Pirep? You really are the daftest fjukkwit I've ever seen. And that's
> saying something.
>
>
> Bertie
>

God you're a jealous twit. You just hate people that enjoy life.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cf8Sj.111592$Ft5.91935
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22:
>>
>>> My old cell phone was on its last legs.
>>
>>
>> Much like your brain.
>>
>> Pirep? You really are the daftest fjukkwit I've ever seen. And
that's
>> saying something.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> God you're a jealous twit. You just hate people that enjoy life.
>
>
>

Bwawahwhaqhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwa!


Like you?

Try again fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cf8Sj.111592$Ft5.91935
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>> news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22:
>>>
>>>> My old cell phone was on its last legs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Much like your brain.
>>>
>>> Pirep? You really are the daftest fjukkwit I've ever seen. And
> that's
>>> saying something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> God you're a jealous twit. You just hate people that enjoy life.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bwawahwhaqhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwa!
>
>
> Like you?
>
> Try again fjukkwit.
>
>
> Bertie

Not me, I actually enjoy seeing you **** yourself.

Squirt, squirt.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:aZ8Sj.111624$Ft5.8375
> @newsfe15.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:cf8Sj.111592$Ft5.91935
>>> @newsfe15.lga:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>>> news:1F0Sj.89684$TT4.28062@attbi_s22:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My old cell phone was on its last legs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Much like your brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pirep? You really are the daftest fjukkwit I've ever seen. And
>>> that's
>>>>> saying something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> God you're a jealous twit. You just hate people that enjoy life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bwawahwhaqhwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwa!
>>>
>>>
>>> Like you?
>>>
>>> Try again fjukkwit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Not me, I actually enjoy seeing you **** yourself.
>>
>> Squirt, squirt.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You look a bit yellow. Jaundiced?
>
>
> Bertie

You're the squirt sniffer, tell me what ya think, Rover!

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder schrieb:
>>> I just upgraded and was about to order the LG EnV when I realized that
>>> the LG Voyager had *real* internet access and not the Mobile Web 2.0.
>> what's internet on a mobile phone these days in the US? Do you already
>> have UMTS, HDSPA and all the fancy stuff? Or is it still 2G (Edge et al)?
>>
>> #m
>
> My iPhone is Edge but it is also WiFi and there is almost no place I use
> the internet capability that isn't near an open WiFi Node so I almost
> never use the Edge part of the phone.

wifi has nothing to do with the mobile network features (this is what I
was interested in).
So there is no UMTS available in the US?

As for the iphone: by June (or so) the next generation will have UMTS
built in. But as Apple wants to have its share on every minute I won't
switch to T-Mobile (the one that has the exclusive rights here).

#m

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> And in the hands of a 15 year old, the EnV is capable of sending over
>> 1500
>> text messages per month.
>
> Despite incessant begging from two teenagers, I continue to not allow
> texting on any of our cell phones.

Good God why, Jay? If it is part of the package and not an extra fee
what do you have against text messages. You trust your son to fly a
plane but he can't TM.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> Despite incessant begging from two teenagers, I continue to not allow
>> texting on any of our cell phones.
>
> Good God why, Jay? If it is part of the package and not an extra fee what
> do you have against text messages. You trust your son to fly a plane but
> he can't TM.

Because, at age 17, there is precisely one use for texting: Communicating
with someone you should be talking to while you're doing something that
you're supposed to be paying full attention to. AKA: "School".

And, yes, it is ten bucks extra per month.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> And in the hands of a 15 year old, the EnV is capable of sending over
>>> 1500
>>> text messages per month.
>>
>> Despite incessant begging from two teenagers, I continue to not allow
>> texting on any of our cell phones.
>
> Good God why, Jay? If it is part of the package and not an extra fee what
> do you have against text messages. You trust your son to fly a plane but
> he can't TM.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Because, at age 17, there is precisely one use for texting: Communicating
> with someone you should be talking to while you're doing something that
> you're supposed to be paying full attention to. AKA: "School".

Obviously that should read "Communicating with someone you should NOT be
talking to..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Because, at age 17, there is precisely one use for texting: Communicating with
> someone you should be talking to while you're doing something that you're
> supposed to be paying full attention to. AKA: "School".

And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they really do try to
get away with using TM at school, during class. They can even type by feel with
it under their desk, or inside a pocket.

Good decision, Jay. Nothing that needs to be said on TM can't be said in a real
phone call, when the time is more appropriate.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Morgans wrote:

> And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they really do
> try to get away with using TM at school, during class. They can even
> type by feel with it under their desk, or inside a pocket.

That seems like a skill we should promote. With all the digital
equipment being added to aircraft the ability to work electronics with
your head up from the panel will come in handy.

:)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:1wsSj.91504$TT4.90025@attbi_s22:

>> Because, at age 17, there is precisely one use for texting:
>> Communicating with someone you should be talking to while you're
>> doing something that you're supposed to be paying full attention to.
>> AKA: "School".
>
> Obviously that should read "Communicating with someone you should NOT
> be talking to..."

Good grief, you probably force thenm to go to bible skool as well.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they really
>> do try to get away with using TM at school, during class. They can
>> even type by feel with it under their desk, or inside a pocket.
>
> That seems like a skill we should promote. With all the digital
> equipment being added to aircraft the ability to work electronics with
> your head up from the panel will come in handy.
>
>:)
>

We;re already there. The FOs can type about 700 WPM on the FMS. they
can't fly worth a ****, but they can play with the toys at a rate of
knots that's breathtaking.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:1wsSj.91504$TT4.90025@attbi_s22:
>
>>> Because, at age 17, there is precisely one use for texting:
>>> Communicating with someone you should be talking to while you're
>>> doing something that you're supposed to be paying full attention to.
>>> AKA: "School".
>>
>> Obviously that should read "Communicating with someone you should NOT
>> be talking to..."
>
> Good grief, you probably force thenm to go to bible skool as well.
>
>
> Bertie

Spoken like a true atheist.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Morgans wrote:
>>
>>> And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they really
>>> do try to get away with using TM at school, during class. They can
>>> even type by feel with it under their desk, or inside a pocket.
>>
>> That seems like a skill we should promote. With all the digital
>> equipment being added to aircraft the ability to work electronics with
>> your head up from the panel will come in handy.
>>
>>:)
>>
>
> We;re already there. The FOs can type about 700 WPM on the FMS. they
> can't fly worth a ****, but they can play with the toys at a rate of
> knots that's breathtaking.
>
>
> Bertie

Got a link to that story?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:sLISj.69389$y05.9340
@newsfe22.lga:
>>
>> Good grief, you probably force thenm to go to bible skool as well.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Spoken like a true atheist.
>

Aww, you're calling me an atheist! You a big meanie, aintcha?


Not to mention a big pussy.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:jNISj.69391$y05.16172
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Morgans wrote:
>>>
>>>> And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they
really
>>>> do try to get away with using TM at school, during class. They can
>>>> even type by feel with it under their desk, or inside a pocket.
>>>
>>> That seems like a skill we should promote. With all the digital
>>> equipment being added to aircraft the ability to work electronics
with
>>> your head up from the panel will come in handy.
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>
>> We;re already there. The FOs can type about 700 WPM on the FMS. they
>> can't fly worth a ****, but they can play with the toys at a rate of
>> knots that's breathtaking.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Got a link to that story?
>
>
>

Yes, several.


Bertie

[curmudgeon]

*NO* but they sure as HELL love to use dirty words,
when ever and where ever possible,
if for no other reason than they can.


"There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
*CUR*

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:17:06 -0600, "curmudgeon"
> wrote in
>:

>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"curmudgeon" > wrote in
:

> *NO* but they sure as HELL love to use dirty words,
> when ever and where ever possible,
> if for no other reason than they can.
>

Like "HELL"?


>
> "There are no enemies in science just anomalies"
> *CUR*
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 2 May 2008 13:17:06 -0600, "curmudgeon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
>

Added alt.fan.larry.dighera.netkop.netkop.netkop

[[email protected]]

On Apr 30, 9:56*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> My old cell phone was on its last legs. *I had twice given my "free
> upgrades" to my kids so they could get the "latest-greatest" music-enabled
> whiz phones, so my old phone was...just a phone. *It looked like a hockey
> puck after a full season on the ice, with hardly any paint left on it, and
> the sound quality was starting to go.
>
> So, when my "free upgrade" came up again, off to the Verizon store I went.
> I wanted something with a built-in planner, something WITHOUT a touch screen
> (my son's experience with his "Chocolate" taught me that lesson), and a
> decent built-in camera. * The LG EnV was the one I settled on.
>
> The EnV has all the features of their top-of-the-line "Voyager", but without
> the problematic touch screen. *The feature list is quite impressive, but the
> ones that are most pertinent to aviators are:
>
> 1. GPS
> 2. Internet access.
>
> 1. GPS. *I had heard that cell phones were GPS enabled, but I didn't know
> how far they had come. The EnV has two LCD screens. *The one on the outside
> is standard "cell-phone" size, but it opens up to display a much larger
> internal LCD screen that is actually a bit bigger than the one in my Garmin
> 496. * The navigational interface is easy and intuitive, and all you have to
> do is enter an address (or point of interest) in and let the phone give you
> street-by-street driving instructions, complete with a moving map.
>
> Cooler yet, with the bluetooth earpiece, the little voice in your ear TELLS
> YOU "turn left, 300 yards". *It's quite remarkable.
>
> Better yet, it's NOT really GPS, which requires a clear view of the sky.
> The phone is actually more like LORAN, using cell towers to triangulate your
> position against its internal database of the world. * Thus, it works
> indoors, and there's no need to position the thing on the dashboard. *No
> power cords, not antenna wires. *Very nice.
>
> I presume that it can't be used in the air, but it's sure making finding our
> way around a strange city easier after we arrive.
>
> (Yes, the 496 has turn-by-turn driving capability, too, but in practice
> we've found that we just don't take it with us when we borrow the courtesy
> car. *The 496 is just too futzy to take out of the panel dock, and we never
> seem to remember to bring the little bean-bag dashboard mount and the little
> antenna. *And, of course, you can't leave a $3K GPS sitting on the dash of a
> clapped-out old police cruiser, so we're always trying to lock it in the
> trunk.
>
> The EnV, on the other hand, is always on my belt, so we're using it all the
> time.)
>
> 2. Internet Access.
> I used to subscribe to a cell phone weather service that gave me access to
> radar and satellite info, as well as METARS and TAFs. * It cost the same per
> month as full web-access does on this phone -- and now I can get much of the
> same weather as I can on any computer.
>
> When you open the EnV it's got a full QWERTY keyboard that makes entering
> data easy. *That big (relatively speaking) color screen makes viewing easy,
> and I'm surprised at how quickly the web loads. *Verizon has invested
> heavily in improving the speed of mobile web applications, and it shows.
>
> There are a host of other great features (the planner is terrific, the
> camera is very good, the 2 GB memory card holds lots of pix and video, it
> can record digital audio for hours, it's a very nice speaker phone) that I
> use daily, and a bunch I may never use (texting, iPod-like music, etc) but
> the future really is NOW.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I just got a new Crackberry... yes these things are addictive (but
useful).

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> And for those who don't have teenagers in the house, yes, they really do
> try to get away with using TM at school, during class. They can even type
> by feel with it under their desk, or inside a pocket.

And let's not forget the brainless wonders that text-message WHILE DRIVING.

We see it all the time, in this college town. They're the same ones who
step off the curb without ever looking. It's a miracle these kids ever make
it to adulthood.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On May 2, 3:11*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
>
> > I just got a new Crackberry... yes these things are addictive (but
> > useful).
>
> it needs a google-groups user to fullquote the original post just to
> bring on his own one and a half line of comment ... *doh*
>
> #m

Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:

> Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?

your point is?

#m

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-03, > wrote:
> On May 2, 3:11*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> it needs a google-groups user to fullquote the original post just to
>> bring on his own one and a half line of comment ... *doh*
> Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?

That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
were directly commenting on.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[[email protected]]

On May 3, 6:21*am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-05-03, > wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 3:11*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> >> it needs a google-groups user to fullquote the original post just to
> >> bring on his own one and a half line of comment ... *doh*
> > Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?
>
> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
> didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
> were directly commenting on.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Cry me a river....

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-04, > wrote:
> On May 3, 6:21 am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
>> didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
>> were directly commenting on.
> Cry me a river....

It's responses like yours that give top-posters their justification.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-05-04, > wrote:
>> On May 3, 6:21 am, Jay Maynard >
>> wrote:
>>> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that
>>> you didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just
>>> what you were directly commenting on.
>> Cry me a river....
>
> It's responses like yours that give top-posters their justification.

enabler *******s.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Maynard > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2008-05-04, > wrote:
>>> On May 3, 6:21 am, Jay Maynard >
>>> wrote:
>>>> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that
>>>> you didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just
>>>> what you were directly commenting on.
>>> Cry me a river....
>>
>> It's responses like yours that give top-posters their justification.
>
> enabler *******s.
>
>
> Bertie

Squirt, squirt.

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
> didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
> were directly commenting on.

If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
default to a top post???

Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
THEN you could scroll down.

Marco

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon > wrote:
> If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
> default to a top post???

Because the vast majority of email programs were written by Microsoft, who
never really understood the net. There's also a laziness factor involved.

> Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
> threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
> THEN you could scroll down.

The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
your reply and what you're replying to.

Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
backwards?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon > wrote:
>> If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
>> default to a top post???
>
> Because the vast majority of email programs were written by Microsoft, who
> never really understood the net. There's also a laziness factor involved.

Most of the online email apps are not MS-developed and I have yet to see one
default to bottom post. If you know of one, please provide a reference.

> The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
> your reply and what you're replying to.

Destroys? Dramatic. How? The conversation is still there--just at the bottom
of the post in case you need to refer to it.

> Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
> backwards?

Umm, no. Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer
them? Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
thread when reading each and every reply?

Marco

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon > wrote:
> Most of the online email apps are not MS-developed and I have yet to see one
> default to bottom post. If you know of one, please provide a reference.

I don't. The online ones default to top posting because Microsoft screwed up
royally with outlook, and they're being bug-compatible.

>> The problem with top posting is that it destriys any correlation between
>> your reply and what you're replying to.
> Destroys? Dramatic. How? The conversation is still there--just at the bottom
> of the post in case you need to refer to it.

Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.

To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
reply?

>> Do you hold conversations backwards? Why should you ask us to read mesages
>> backwards?
> Umm, no.

Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?

> Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer them?

No. That's why I trim away what I'm not directly replying to.

> Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
> thread when reading each and every reply?

No. That's why I trim away whatever I'm not directly replying to.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[[email protected]]

On May 3, 6:21*am, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-05-03, > wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 3:11*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> >> it needs a google-groups user to fullquote the original post just to
> >> bring on his own one and a half line of comment ... *doh*
> > Hey, top posting is illegal, remenber?
>
> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
> didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
> were directly commenting on.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.net
> Fairmont, MN (FRM) * * * * * * * * * * * *(Yes, that's me!)
> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Censorship is evil. You want me to censor? Which part?

Quitcher bitching, you'd think I'd killed someone or something...

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-05, > wrote:
> Censorship is evil. You want me to censor? Which part?

It's not censorship. You're not removing my words from the net, or
preventing me from posting them. You're just trimming out what you're not
directly commenting on.

> Quitcher bitching, you'd think I'd killed someone or something...

No, it's not that bad by a long ways. It is, however, a waste of bandwidth
and people's time, and an active encouragement for people to top-post.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> I don't. The online ones default to top posting because Microsoft screwed
> up
> royally with outlook, and they're being bug-compatible.

I fail to see how not conforming with top-posting on a reply will result in
a software defect.

> Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
> is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.

It will be related to the text directly below it if everyone followed their
software's default location.

> > To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
> message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
> reply?

Again, it will relate to the text immediately below it.

> Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?

"Backwards" is subjective. Bottom-posting is against the general default
software posting location lending to the idea that your preference is
"backward."

>> Do you repeat what everyone says to you verbatim before you answer them?
>
> No. That's why I trim away what I'm not directly replying to.

Trimming and top-posting are not mutually exclusive. I'm all for trimming
and people who follow their software and post at the default location should
trim as well.

>> Are peoples' memory that short that they have to read the entire
>> thread when reading each and every reply?
>
> No. That's why I trim away whatever I'm not directly replying to.

It's easier to trim when everything you need to trim is below the text
needed for context (SHIFT-Page Down).

We can go back and forth ad nauseum but it's all about individual
preference. My preference is not the same as yours but it does not make it
"wrong." My other point is that the vast majority of relevant software does
it a certain way and I don't think they're goose-stepping just to conform
with Microsoft. It certainly won't create a software bug. Gmail top posts
and I doubt they would hesitate to do it another way if they thought it was
better.

I'll continue to bottom-post in this forum if it's the general preference
here because it simply is not that big a deal. But it *is* going against the
grain of the most of the rest of the software world.

Marco

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon > wrote:
> I fail to see how not conforming with top-posting on a reply will result in
> a software defect.

Because lots of users are used to Outlook's broken behavior and will
consider it a bug if it's not emulated.

>> Because if you're adding a bunch of text at the top, an individual comment
>> is not related to what it's replying to, as the style I'm using does.
> It will be related to the text directly below it if everyone followed their
> software's default location.

*WHICH* text directly below it? There's lots of text down there.

>> To see what I mean, imagine if I'd included my text at the top of the
>> message in a block. How would you know to which concept this comment was a
>> reply?
> Again, it will relate to the text immediately below it.

Uh, no. There are lots of words there, some of which the text in question
may be a reply to, some of which may not.

>> Then why are you supporting the idea of posting backwards?
> "Backwards" is subjective.

I mean backwards to the order in which people read...or do your read
messages bottom to top?

> Bottom-posting is against the general default software posting location
> lending to the idea that your preference is "backward."

Broken defaults don't change how people are taught to read.

> Trimming and top-posting are not mutually exclusive. I'm all for trimming
> and people who follow their software and post at the default location should
> trim as well.

Better yet, post your comment directly after what you're commenting on. That
way, your readers can tell just what your reply refers to.

> It's easier to trim when everything you need to trim is below the text
> needed for context (SHIFT-Page Down).

Perhaps. That doesn't matter, because replying above what you're replying to
is backwards from the way people read.

Think for a moment if books were written in the method you advocate. How
readable would they be?

> We can go back and forth ad nauseum but it's all about individual
> preference. My preference is not the same as yours but it does not make it
> "wrong."

Top posting has been recommended against for decades. Literally.

> My other point is that the vast majority of relevant software does it a
> certain way and I don't think they're goose-stepping just to conform with
> Microsoft.

That's exactly why they do it that way - unless they're just being lazy.

> It certainly won't create a software bug. Gmail top posts and I doubt
> they would hesitate to do it another way if they thought it was better.

Gmail explicitly puts the cursor at the top to avoid complaints from Outlook
users.

> I'll continue to bottom-post in this forum if it's the general preference
> here because it simply is not that big a deal. But it *is* going against the
> grain of the most of the rest of the software world.

Microsoft put out Outlook in the mid-1990s with its broken behavior. The
standard on the Internet since at least 1985, and probably well before then
(I'm only awawre of etiquette guides going back that far), has been to do as
I'm doing here: post your replies directly after what you're replying to,
and trim away all but what you want to comment on.

It is Microsoft that is going against long-standing Usenet and Internet
tradition and preferred methods. Their dominance (enhanced by their illegal
monopolistic practices) is what has spread top-posting. That doesn't make it
desirable or correct.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Marco Leon wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's not the point. Top posting is evil, true. The point is that you
>> didn't trim the 100 or so lines of what you quoted down to just what you
>> were directly commenting on.
>
> If top posting is so evil, why do the vast majority of email programs
> default to a top post???
>
> Personally, I prefer top posting since most newsreaders organize posts into
> threads and don't need the context most of the time. And if you do need it,
> THEN you could scroll down.
>
> Marco
>
>

There is a difference in e-mail and USENET. In USENET there is a pretty
good chance that someone might miss one or all of the previous posts.

[Marco Leon[_5_]]

You keep insisting something that is a preference is either correct or
incorrect so it's ridiculous to keep going with this thread.

I hope I didn't throw you off by deleting the rest of the text. I apologize
if I lost you.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-05, Marco Leon > wrote:
> You keep insisting something that is a preference is either correct or
> incorrect so it's ridiculous to keep going with this thread.

I agree: if you refuse to accept the possibility that Microsoft flouted
longstanding Usenet etiquette by putting the cursor at the top, and everyone
else followed along because that's what the juggernaut led them to expect,
there's not much I can do about it.

I leave you with this thought: It's not a preference. It's been accepted as
good Usenet practice for at least 20 years to post as I do. Yes, I've been
around that long. Have you?

> I hope I didn't throw you off by deleting the rest of the text. I apologize
> if I lost you.

Not at all. You did exactly what you should have: you trimmed away what you
felt was unnecessary to include.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> No, it's not that bad by a long ways. It is, however, a waste of bandwidth
> and people's time, and an active encouragement for people to top-post.

It seems the best way for your post to be seen is to copy/paste the
pertinent nugget(s) to the top of the post, and then post your comments
directly beneath them -- like this.

I (and I'll bet many others) usually skip posts that make me scroll ten
pages to the bottom.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"