National Anthems: Home | Africa | Americas | Asia | Australia&Oceania | Europe | Olympic Anthem |

 
Passports: Home [ Africa ] [ Americas, Australia & Oceania] [ Asia] [ Europe] [ Other documents
Travel:
[Europe] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ Carabben ] [ Air ] [Cruises ]




Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight Posted on: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:14:25 +1000

mrtravel wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James Robinson wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> mrtravel wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Bob Myers wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Bob Myers wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> James Robinson wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> James Robinson wrote

>>>>>>>>>> I'm nothing like line of sight from the GSM base
>>>>>>>>>> I use in my house, and it works fine anyway.

>>>>>>>>> Unless your house is farther away than the horizon, it most certainly is "line of sight" in this sense.

>>>>>>>> Nope. The base is on a hill at the back of town, and I am
>>>>>>>> on the flat below the hill, with the base well over the top
>>>>>>>> of the hill from my house. Its nothing like line of sight.

>>>>>>> Let's put it this way - how, exactly, do YOU
>>>>>>> believe that the signals are getting from you to
>>>>>>> your base at the house, in the above scenario?

>>>>>> It clearly aint line of sight.

>>>>>> Same thing happens in spades with big buildings etc in CBDs etc.

>>>>>> Nothing like line of sight in fact.

>>>>> How are these big buidling NOT in the line of sight?

>>>> The handsets clearly arent in the line of sight of
>>>> the base with that big building in the line of sight.

>>> You obviously haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

>> We'll see...

>>> As long as your handset is in the line of sight with the antenna without
>>> the building in the way, it is considered a line of sight propagation.

>> Only by pig ignorant fools like you.

>>> The materials in the building simply attenuate the communication somewhat.

>> Have fun explaining the hill situation. It doesnt get to my house thru the hill, stupid.

> So, it can go through buildings, but not a hill?

It clearly can go thru buildings, otherwise you
wouldnt be able to use a cellphone inside a building.

> And, there are hills between you and all of the nearby cell locations,

I was talking about a single base which is the one I use when inside my house.

> because they didn't think putting them at a higher elevation made any sense?

That base is already at the highest elevation possible, on the top of the hill
thats on the north side of the town. Because my house is at the bottom of
the hill on the flat, there is no direct line of sight between the base and my
house, the top edge of the hill gets in the way of that direct line of sight
and you cant see the base from my house, even if you use a telescope
etc, because its back past the top of the hill that you can see from the house.

> Let's try this again.
> HOW SO YOU THINK THE SIGNAL GETS THERE?

NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACT THAT IT AINT LINE OF SIGHT.


666622. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666622. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666628. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666629. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666630. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666636. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666638. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666639. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666640. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666640. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666889. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight
666889. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest flight
666890. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666890. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666899. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666901. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666903. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666914. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666915. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl
666936. Re: CEO charged for refusing to get off cellphone during Southwest fl