Re: Do one thing. Do it right.
On Fri 14 Feb 2020 at 14:33:54 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 14 February 2020 10:29:26 David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 14 Feb 2020 at 08:55:41 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > On 02/14/2020 07:35 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > On Friday 14 February 2020 07:50:01 Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > > Youngsters have two foibles:
> > > > > More is always better.
> > > > > Glitz for its own sake.
> > > > > <smile ;>
> > > > > For perspective:
> > > > > 1. although only in mid-70's, my parents would be in their
> > > > > 12th decade.
> > > > > 2. my father took a M.E. degree rather than E.E. as it gave
> > > > > him more of what today would be considered a minimal BSEE
> > > > > degree. 3. my first computers ran on 1 MHz 6502's. 2nd even had
> > > > > 8k ram.
> > > >
> > > > Whereas my first was a
> >
> > [… snipped all the stuff about TV control rooms …]
> >
> > > > Do one job, do it right. I needed a clock for frame code, so I
> > > > wrote one, more accurate that either std frame or drop frame.
> > > >
> > > > > On 02/13/2020 09:17 PM, David Wright wrote in another thread:
> > > > > [ https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00611.html ]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If a device is small, it has to appeal to a mass market.
> > > > >
> > > > > *NO*! It's only required that engineering appeal to market.
> > > > > E.G. In the last year there have been multiple amazing
> > > > > prosthetics for children and small animals in the news. They
> > > > > were possible due to advances in 3D printing.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't realise that when you were talking about a Personal
> > Digital Assistant you meant a plastic finger.
> >
> > > > > > To do that, it has to be packed with features, whether
> > > > > > or not these are "detrimental" to *your* intended use.
> > > > >
> > > > > No! The inclusion of cell modem and WiFi would drive per unit
> > > > > cost of FCC approval through the roof.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed again. Folks have zero clue about the complexity of dealing
> > > > with the regulatory agencies.
> >
> > Is this why virtually every electronic device nowadays has some form
> > of connectivity, either phone, wifi or BT.
> Only because it won't even be picked up and considered for purchase if it
> has a power or connectivity cord supplied with it.
I agree, and that's what's causing the OP consternation. The Noughties
are long gone. My MP3 player is obsolete. So are most of the components
in the computers I run, all of which are either obsolete or obsolescent.
The OP might be better off buying old stuff from ebay.
[…]
> > > > > > I was surprised how much of the pinephone's functionality
> > > > > > could be switched off, once I'd decoded the jargon in
> > > > > > their specifications (with help). But I don't see how you
> > > > > > can avoid having to compromise over the inclusion of those
> > > > > > (redundant to you) functions, particularly in view of the
> > > > > > extra cost of providing the flexibility to turn them off.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not there then *NO* need to turn off. ROFL
> > > >
> > > > Chuckle.
> > >
> > > We old fogies need to teach these youngsters.
> >
> > Laugh all you like, but that doesn't sell devices that still
> > require wired connections to be able to use them.
> >
> > I think the subject line of this thread is confusing software tools
> > and hardware. People are no longer happy to walk round with their
> > pockets (if they have them) filled with a phone, a camera, a diary,
> > a memo pad, a photo album, an MP3 player, a dictaphone, a calculator,
> > a transistor radio, a street map, a paperback, a pocket chess set,
> > not forgetting a newspaper tucked under their arm.
>
> This is also true which is why these thing are all crammed to the last
> byte of their roms with functionality that as a retired old fart don't
> need. I think its my business where I buy my grocery's, don't you?
>
> Carrying that fawncy cellphone guarantees you will be tracked, including
> that stop on a quiet road to water a thirsty weed. So I buy annual time
> on a dumb track phone when I'm out of pocket I've done w/o that crap
> for 85 years and I don't intend to give up my privacy without first
> exchanging some lead. But in the event of an accident or mechanical
> failure, I can call for help.
Surely any cellphone can/must be tracked if you're able to receive
calls, otherwise they wouldn't know from which tower to transmit to you.
What I don't know is whether they bother (from a technical standpoint
rather than espionage) to track a SIM-less phone. Making contact in
that case could be left until you actually try to place a call. I've
forgotten which electronic items I used to hear the interference on.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: