On planes… often…
@United has new coach trays that are coated with a material that has an amazing coefficient of friction. They are not sticky at all—there’s no adhesion effect—it is all friction. Even low surface energy plastics don’t slide on it at all.
The approximately 75-80° angle in the picture is the point at which the cup topples over itself. It isn’t adhered to the surface and it doesn’t appear to slide at all before toppling.
This would be the perfect coating for a smart phone pad in a car.
I’ve occasionally had to buy business on poorly planned Lufthansa intra-Europe flights. While Lufthansa long-haul premium seats are possibly the best in the business, on short-haul/intra-Europe flights, LH business class seats would seam a little mean in most carrier’s coach sections.
There is no difference between coach seats and business class, none at all. In business all middle seats are blocked out, but that isn’t that hard to find in coach. It is efficient to scale business, it involves only moving a rack-mounted divider that is the only obvious differentiation in the classes.
In both the seats are substandard to the amenities one usually expects, especially on a long haul flight:
– little padding on the seats
– cramped seat pitch (worse than econ +)
– typical economy seat width
– no in seat power (not even a usb port)
– no personalized IFE
Such limitations would be cheap in economy, but in business they are, perhaps we should say “disappointing.” Neither the economy nor the business class zone is going to leave the passenger well-rested (IST-FRA is a long enough flight that rest matters); such a flight is a grim endurance test for everyone. But it is very egalitarian in shared suffering, though not particularly egalitarian in pricing. And were LH business not priced competitively with other carrier’s business, the disparity in services wouldn’t seem quite so jarring.
LH is, of course, efficient and well organized, but every other airline I’ve flown that has a business class has far, far better business class, even those that can’t really manage the basics.
Sushi from the JFK RCC int 1st club before a transcon. Hmmm…
Apparently the FAA has decided that cordless mice with their nanowatts of transmit power represent a risk to airplanes. Discussion forums contemplate that the FAA is concerned they could be used to trigger explosives in the hold (when they outlaw cordless mice, only outlaws will have cordless mice). Perhaps they found a cordless mouse that used a spark gap transmitter and so banned the whole class.
BTW, this is being posted via gogo inflight, the wireless radio on my laptop also uses 2.4ghz unregulated and could be 200mw and who knows who made it (same frequency band, 3 or 4 orders of magnitude more RF power).
While I’ve dealt with worse, I am on occasion reminded of just how awesome the air bureaucracy in this country really is.
This is totally awesome.
People actually used it too – a small, lockable, private room in a public place? Amazing! No “look at my feet” slot under the door either, no evidence of a camera in the room. There was a small desk and power for a laptop and if you were having a noisy conversation or needed to change you could lock yourself in.
It wasn’t completely soundproof, so not quite the unguarded utility closet of Six Feet Under, but still a very nice asset and productivity was enhanced by other people using it rather than entertaining me with their conversations.
Gross standing water filled with soap scum, bacteria, and stink is hardly a hygienic improvement.
This is very cool. Some very nice late summer employee appreciation.
My UAL flight had 4:3 side screens and a 16:9 center screen. The program material was 4:3 and dynamically distorted to fit the 16:9 screen.
Now I’m used to 16:9 screens showing horribly distorted video in hotel rooms; it seems every hotel has invested in wide screen TVs but, hey, broadcast is 4:3. So they’re fixed at “stretch” and only occasionally do you find a TV that you can reset to pillar box so it doesn’t look horrible. And I thought that was bad.
But this is amazing – the screen has a variable distortion field – stretch is zero in the center, but becomes more pronounced on the edges. That means that the necessary compensation is worse than 2:1 on the outside edges, just horribly distorted, while the center is undistorted. I suppose the theory was an analog of fovial vision… gone awry, but the result is just weird, disturbing when someone walks across the screen and seems to get twice as fat from center to edge. Who thought that was a good idea?
People: do not distort the image. Just because you paid for the pixels does not mean you must use them.