Re: In re: cell phones
- From: "Eisboch" <nothere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:02:16 -0500
"Boater" <payer33859@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ot6bjF59q4iU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My carrier has a special "hardened" cell phone now that is supposedly
perfect for klutzes like me. No camera, but...water resistant, droppable,
et cetera. Might look into it.
My cell phone account is really a secondary user on Mrs.E's. account and
originally had "the works" for services, but I never used them. When the
original phone died I bought a simple one (still has more features than I
use) and canceled stuff like Internet access and things I just didn't ever
use.
It does have a camera though, which I find handy once in a while. Some of
the phones actually take halfway decent snapshots and mini-movies, although
obviously the image quality doesn't compare to a real camera with decent
lenses.
I have a little bit of personal interest in the camera feature. We
(meaning my company) designed and built several Optical Coating Systems
(vacuum deposition systems) and the tooling required, for a small company
originally located in Rochester, NY. (This company was eventually acquired
by JDS Uniphase or JDSU.)
The systems applied a multi-layer, anti-reflective coating onto the small
plastic lenses used in cell phone cameras. At the time, we were contracted
for the systems, we were also subject to a severe non-disclosure clause as
to the purpose of the systems and the end product. Obviously this was about
a year before the built-in cameras in cell phones became available.
Eisboch
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: In re: cell phones
- From: Calif Bill
- Re: In re: cell phones
- References:
- In re: cell phones
- From: Boater
- Re: In re: cell phones
- From: Don White
- Re: In re: cell phones
- From: Boater
- In re: cell phones
- Prev by Date: Re: The rich are suffering, too.
- Next by Date: Re: You can't make this stuff up...
- Previous by thread: Re: In re: cell phones
- Next by thread: Re: In re: cell phones
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|