| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2005 02:43:51 PM |
| Object: |
The future of displays? |
I remember years ago when colour LCD displays were just equations being
worked on. I'm wondering what I can expect in the next 15-20 years.
Will it be more of the same, but bigger, lighter, and flexible? LCD
monitors seem good enough, now, for just using a computer. LCD
projectors seem good, but need bulb replacement so how about LEDs
instead?
I am more thinking about displaying extra information other than
intensity, like holographic displays (colour or monochrome) and
possibly reflectivity so you can get good metallic colours. This would
go down well, I believe for shopping channels.
Capturing information to display a hologram is another issue.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
22 Sep 2005 05:11:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I remember years ago when colour LCD displays were just equations being
worked on. I'm wondering what I can expect in the next 15-20 years.
Will it be more of the same, but bigger, lighter, and flexible? LCD
monitors seem good enough, now, for just using a computer. LCD
projectors seem good, but need bulb replacement so how about LEDs
instead?
I am more thinking about displaying extra information other than
intensity, like holographic displays (colour or monochrome) and
possibly reflectivity so you can get good metallic colours. This would
go down well, I believe for shopping channels.
Capturing information to display a hologram is another issue.
The future IMO should have arrived some 15yrs ago.
I put on a headset with a device the size of a pack of chewing gum over one eye
and saw a 720x350 (IIRC) mono display hanging in the air in front of me.
Why this tech has never caught on for PDAs and phones I have never understood.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
22 Sep 2005 10:26:14 PM |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
The future IMO should have arrived some 15yrs ago.
I put on a headset with a device the size of a pack of chewing gum over one eye
and saw a 720x350 (IIRC) mono display hanging in the air in front of me.
Why this tech has never caught on for PDAs and phones I have never understood.
How about the looking-like-a-dork part? Try putting it beneath a
cool/cute visor instead.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
22 Sep 2005 10:43:21 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
The future IMO should have arrived some 15yrs ago.
I put on a headset with a device the size of a pack of chewing gum over one eye
and saw a 720x350 (IIRC) mono display hanging in the air in front of me.
Why this tech has never caught on for PDAs and phones I have never understood.
How about the looking-like-a-dork part? Try putting it beneath a
cool/cute visor instead.
Why should you, of all people, be concerned with party alpha's
perception of party beta's appearance of dorkiness? What do you care
what other people think?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 02:47:45 AM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Why should you, of all people, be concerned with party alpha's
perception of party beta's appearance of dorkiness? What do you care
what other people think?
I care about all parties because they exist and are influential. And I
don't tolerate the ugly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 09:01:40 AM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
I don't tolerate the ugly.
Then why haven't you reported to the nearest cemetary?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 12:08:36 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Then why haven't you reported to the nearest cemetary?
There's no such thing, and you make fun and rubbish when you're jealous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 12:14:28 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Then why haven't you reported to the nearest cemetary?
There's no such thing,
Try telling that to all the dead people who reside in such places.
and you make fun and rubbish when you're jealous.
If only I were. But I'm not.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 12:22:34 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Try telling that to all the dead people who reside in such places.
The dead do not live in steads that don't exist (cemetaries).
If only I were. But I'm not.
Your doting betrays you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 12:36:00 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Try telling that to all the dead people who reside in such places.
The dead do not live in steads that don't exist (cemetaries).
They don't live anywhere. And yet, I myself have been to numerous
such places which I call "cemetaries". (I don't give a ***** about your
obsession with spelling. I am free to spell it as I prefer, without
your spermission.)
If only I were. But I'm not.
Your doting betrays you.
Maybe so, but you keep coming back for more. Codependence anyone?
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 12:54:24 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
They don't live anywhere. And yet, I myself have been to numerous
They don't dwell in cemetaries either.
such places which I call "cemetaries". (I don't give a ***** about your
obsession with spelling. I am free to spell it as I prefer, without
your spermission.)
You are free to be known as a groundles (adj.) ***** who hates the
right and truth.
Maybe so, but you keep coming back for more. Codependence anyone?
I don't prefer your messages over others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 01:03:04 PM |
|
|
Autymn - you might want to get your testosterone level checked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 09:53:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Autymn - you might want to get your testosterone level checked.
Both sexes have both hormones, and need them for various uses. If
wives (Old English. females) didn't have much testosterone, you would
never have a chance of engaging them in debate or sex, wilfully. And
if wers (Old English, males) didn't have much =9Cstrogen, you would be
dying of heart attacks more often and wouldn't have enough fat to
cushion your organs from your weight, which age ye still. Never mind
these; wers need less white matter taking up all that room.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 01:06:11 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
They don't live anywhere. And yet, I myself have been to numerous
They don't dwell in cemetaries either.
Their decaying corpses do, in fact, spend time at places which I
call "cemetaries". This is a fact. There is... nothing you can do about
it.
such places which I call "cemetaries". (I don't give a ***** about your
obsession with spelling. I am free to spell it as I prefer, without
your spermission.)
You are free to be known as a groundles (adj.) ***** who hates the
right and truth.
If you wish to call me thus, it is your freedom to do so. See how it
is? We are free to do so.
Maybe so, but you keep coming back for more. Codependence anyone?
I don't prefer your messages over others.
Of course not. You are equally codependent with everyone. You are
addicted to informing others of their relative inferiority to you. If
there were no inferiors, you'd have to invent them. You need society
more than it needs you.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Woodgate" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 03:31:47 PM |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Martin <qed100@hotmail.com>
wrote (in <1127498771.034576.255780@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>) about
'The future of displays?', on Fri, 23 Sep 2005:
You are equally codependent with everyone.
Seek not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
J Dunne
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
23 Sep 2005 10:02:44 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Their decaying corpses do, in fact, spend time at places which I
call "cemetaries". This is a fact. There is... nothing you can do about
it.
It is a fact that there are no such things as cemetaries. There is
nothing /you/ can do to make their resting grounds "cemetaries".
If you wish to call me thus, it is your freedom to do so. See how it
is? We are free to do so.
Freedom is irrelevant.
Of course not. You are equally codependent with everyone. You are
addicted to informing others of their relative inferiority to you. If
there were no inferiors, you'd have to invent them. You need society
more than it needs you.
Wrong, when there are no inferiors around, I like to think or play or
watch or scheme. Stop being a shameless liar.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pig Bladder" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
24 Sep 2005 05:36:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:02:44 -0700, Autymn D. C. wrote:
Freedom is irrelevant.
'Autymn' is borg.
Or a very angry bulldyke wannabe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
25 Sep 2005 11:00:05 PM |
|
|
Pig Bladder wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:02:44 -0700, Autymn D. C. wrote:
Freedom is irrelevant.
'Autymn' is borg.
Or a very angry bulldyke wannabe.
No, I'm a chit. I'd be nice if there weren't so many wrong and dumb
[and ugly] people around. And I hate dykes, and pigmen. I met too
many foulmouthed, addleminded, shitspawn dykes on flickr. When I
complained about the spelling of one, I got banned. Then again, I've
been complaining about the spelling of many other lusers there, and
never got any justice.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Woodgate" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 05:15:12 AM |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving someone
permission to do something or to receive goods?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 06:26:31 AM |
|
|
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "NunYa Bidness" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 01:13:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Sure causes problems in important, life threatening circumstances.
Shoving a piece of paper in the end of you rifle doesn't "cut" it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
27 Sep 2005 04:00:36 AM |
|
|
In message <qadgj1dvu3fevdn7our0a3iq3cloru59b0@4ax.com>, NunYa Bidness
<nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> writes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Sure causes problems in important, life threatening circumstances.
What important, life-threatening problems do you think would confront
UK-based RAF ground crew in the early 1940s, and which piece of
regulation webbing would solve them?
(I don't believe they had military-issue St Christopher medals.)
Shoving a piece of paper in the end of you rifle doesn't "cut" it.
What do you imagine he'd have done with a rifle? Shoot at the bombs as
they fell?
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spehro Pefhany" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 08:01:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, the renowned Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Perhaps that's a good strategy for some things, but probaby you'd want
to make sure that you got a real parachute rather than a voucher.
OTOH, if the parachute was not that important, he could always sell it
to whatever the Brit equivalent of Milo Minderbinder's M&M Enterprises
was.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 08:51:49 AM |
|
|
In message <qprfj1p79h7kammgaak3a4saneaserekrs@4ax.com>, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, the renowned Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Perhaps that's a good strategy for some things, but probaby you'd want
to make sure that you got a real parachute rather than a voucher.
Oh, they never let him *fly* anything. He was in the mapping unit.
OTOH, if the parachute was not that important, he could always sell it
to whatever the Brit equivalent of Milo Minderbinder's M&M Enterprises
was.
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Woodgate" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 09:20:01 AM |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
wrote (in <LkjTvJb1z$NDFwMY@baesystems.com>) about 'The future of
displays?', on Mon, 26 Sep 2005:
In message <qprfj1p79h7kammgaak3a4saneaserekrs@4ax.com>, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, the renowned Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Perhaps that's a good strategy for some things, but probaby you'd want
to make sure that you got a real parachute rather than a voucher.
Oh, they never let him *fly* anything. He was in the mapping unit.
Ah! My uncle, who also didn't fly, said that a bicycle was much more
valued than a parachute.
OTOH, if the parachute was not that important, he could always sell it
to whatever the Brit equivalent of Milo Minderbinder's M&M Enterprises
was.
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
Parachute silk was for more romantic applications.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Herring" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 10:10:10 AM |
|
|
In message <A6S65ajROAODFwFR@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote (in <LkjTvJb1z$NDFwMY@baesystems.com>) about
'The future of displays?', on Mon, 26 Sep 2005:
In message <qprfj1p79h7kammgaak3a4saneaserekrs@4ax.com>, Spehro
Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:26:31 +0100, the renowned Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message <ZaJ8BkQwo8NDFwcy@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> writes
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving
someone permission to do something or to receive goods?
Or to *not* receive goods ;-) I had an uncle in the RAF who always made
sure he was at the back of the queue when stuff was being issued.
Instead of large pieces of cumbersome and mostly useless kit, he had a
collection of small neat chits saying he was excused bayonet frogs etc.
because they had run out.
Perhaps that's a good strategy for some things, but probaby you'd want
to make sure that you got a real parachute rather than a voucher.
Oh, they never let him *fly* anything. He was in the mapping unit.
Ah! My uncle, who also didn't fly, said that a bicycle was much more
valued than a parachute.
But you can get further with the 3-tonner they used for delivering the
maps. And with access to a map-quality printing press, getting a weekend
pass was never a problem ;-)
OTOH, if the parachute was not that important, he could always sell it
to whatever the Brit equivalent of Milo Minderbinder's M&M Enterprises
was.
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies
of his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home
furnishings ;-)
Parachute silk was for more romantic applications.
Indeed so. I was probably too young to be told about that aspect.
--
Richard Herring
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NunYa Bidness" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 01:15:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:51:49 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
You guys didn't use artificial fabrics for your parachutes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 01:57:32 PM |
|
|
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote in message
news:5gdgj1102co5ugarphg6huma6spvtrofer@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:51:49 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
You guys didn't use artificial fabrics for your parachutes?
I believe the linen was used for printing maps.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Woodgate" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 02:38:03 PM |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Henry <rphenry@home.com>
wrote (in <CwXZe.281547$E95.200283@fed1read01>) about 'The future of
displays?', on Mon, 26 Sep 2005:
"NunYa Bidness" <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote in message
news:5gdgj1102co5ugarphg6huma6spvtrofer@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:51:49 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
You guys didn't use artificial fabrics for your parachutes?
I believe the linen was used for printing maps.
And covering the structure of the most modern aircraft? (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Woodgate" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 01:21:47 PM |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that NunYa Bidness
<nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote (in
<5gdgj1102co5ugarphg6huma6spvtrofer@4ax.com>) about 'The future of
displays?', on Mon, 26 Sep 2005:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:51:49 +0100, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
Gave us:
I don't know about parachute silk, but I understand that some ladies of
his acquaintance were never short of linen for their home furnishings
;-)
You guys didn't use artificial fabrics for your parachutes?
In those days, there WERE no artificial fabrics strong enough to make
parachute canopies. Silk is VERY strong.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "NunYa Bidness" |
|
| Title: Re: The future of displays? |
26 Sep 2005 01:11:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:15:12 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> Gave us:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Autymn D. C.
<lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote (in
<1127707204.985603.229130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>) about 'The
future of displays?', on Sun, 25 Sep 2005:
No, I'm a chit.
You are a piece of paper, signed by someone in authority, giving someone
permission to do something or to receive goods?
Hahahaha...
Chit Man, Chit Man...
Second generation...
You're a soldier at sixty three.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
