Which One Is the Best Walkman Phone?
If you're looking for a slider phone, go for the W580i. Cool looks and a fitness counter, 2mp cam, Bluetooth and radio. There's also the W910i but the sound quality of that one isn't great and I don't think it's too well built.
If you'd like a flip phone the W710i is really good and has a 2mpx camera and fitness counter. The W300i is also a good flip but it's camera isn't so great and it has a smaller screen, but it is less expensive. Both those phones have Bluetooth, a radio and IR.
If you're into smart phones, the W960i is really cool. It has a touch screen, 3.2mp camera and almost all other features, but it's a bit slower than all the others.
All Walkman phones have a M2 memory card slot that can take up to 2gb, and also have USB connectivity so you can put songs on them from your pc. And I don't think Sony ericssons break easily at all :)
• Suggested Reading
Can you get struck by lighting on your house phone?
Technically, you can get struck by lightNing almost anywhere. You can reduce the probability of being struck. If you use a corded phone (the ones that are NOT cordless), they are grounded. This means that they are electrically attached to the earth ground. This is actually a safety factor, in that a lightning strike to the phone system will carry some of the charge to earth ground. The problem, is that a strike to the telephone wire on the pole (for instance) will also carry down the wire and into your home. If you are on a corded phone, the current would/could carry all the way into the handset that is pressed against your head. That would not be good.
A cordless phone is far less of a risk. Yes, the base of the cordless phone (the part actually connected to the phone line) could be ruined. The air between the handset and the base of a cordless phone is your friend. Air is a fairly good insulator, and gives you a far better chance of not getting a jolt because the lightning would have to travel from the base of the cordless phone unit, through the air, to the cordless hand set. Lightning can certainly do this under the right conditions, but it is still far safer than the corded phone.
By the way, for the same reason, it is a good idea to unplug major electrical appliances (eg. big screen TV) for the same reason. I lost an expensive ham radio in the past due to a lightning strike that hit the street in front of my house, traveled through the ground, and up through the wiring of the house. It blew out sensitive semiconductors in the radio and power supply.
------
If both twins in the twin paradox had cell phones, how would they sound when they talked to each other?It's really hard to answer this. For one once the frequency that the signal is being transmitted gets above, or below a certain range it would be out of the range of normal cell phone signals and thus wouldn't be picked up by normal cell phones.
However, if this effect were accounted for then I believe that the frequencies would sound a lot different, and also the sound because pitch is related to frequency.
It also depends on what point in the trip you are talking about.
On the outward trip they BOTH sound slower to each other, that's the whole purpose of the paradox is that BOTH twins think the other twin is moving slower in time. So I guess both would think the other sounded like a "deep voiced evil spirit (from various horror movies)".
However, on the return trip they will both sound like "Alvin and the Chipmunks" to the listener.
But honestly, this has more to do with just general redshifts and blueshifts than relativity.
However, if the red/blue-shift effects were taken into account by the cell phone and a signal was gathered for a while and corrected to account for it, then both observers would still think the other person sounds to be talking slower (maybe deeper) than normal on the away trip and faster on the return trip. and it is this effect that would be due to relativity.
So the extent of the effect depends on what you mean really, because did you know that it is actually possible to "see" an object moving faster than light! But this is not what is really happening, the object is actually going slower than light, it's just a trick light is playing on you, and whenever you read about an "observation" in relativity they really mean NOT what you actually "see" but what you calculate after taking into account red/blue-shifts and such.. as I explained in the second scenario.
------
using cell phone when your waiting at the traffic light when it is red.?Does your phone auto answer? Y or N
If you need too touch your phone then it is not technically hands free!
"DO NOT ARGUE"
When addressing the judge do not argue and when addressing the prosecution through the judge do not argue.
Below is not legal advice and is just an example of how a situation can be thought of and what actions or comments may be implemented in a certain circumstance.
Write a notice with a supporting 'affidavit of truth' to the clerk of the court for the judge to read prior to any hearing or mention, and also send a copy to the superior at the station of the issuing officer, stating you where using hands free and you have not been provided any evidence to the contrary.
When in court:-
Now! when asked to plea, 'do not' plea 'not guilty' but say your honour there seems to be a misunderstanding here on behalf of the issuing officer.
Explain politely and calmly that you were operating the device in hands free mode (ONLY IF THIS IS LEGAL) and the officer was, although trying to do an honourable job by his belief, simply mistaken. Say that you are happy to pay any liability on proof of the claim by way of material fact or evidence in support of the issuing officers allegation, as you sincerely believe there is none and none exists because you where using hands free as allowed by- (Research and Quote the act/law for the right to use hands free or the law against it, just google it for your state and have a read)
Then ask, is there any evidence in support of the claim your honour?
Your honour without evidence is any claim not just hearsay?
Does my unrebutted affidavit of truth not stand as superior evidence against an unsubstantiated and unproven allegation?
Your honour I ask the case be dismissed based on lack of material fact or evidence in support of claimants claim of the defendant using a mobile device illegally.
Now wait and see what the judge says.
Have fun and if your innocent hold your stance and ask for proof to be provided to show your were not using hands free.
The burden of proof is on the accuser/claimant to prove guilt and not the accused to prove innocence. So ask questions, we are all allowed to do that and if you ask the right ones you may get the right answers.
Wish you well over the issue
------
Why do phones cause cancer?Yes, cell phones do emit microwaves. That's how they send your voice and your data to the cell tower. Your microwave oven also emits microwaves, but most of them are contained inside the microwave, and they are high enough power to heat things that are inside the microwave oven. It is well established that if your phone used the same power as your microwave oven, you would get burns and you would significantly increase your chance of getting cancer.
Cell phones use a lower power signal, so they don't heat your head a noticeable amount. But is it harmless? Nobody knows for sure. There are some studies that show increased risk of cancer among heavy cell phone users, but it's hard to get really good data because we can't take two groups and expose half of them to microwaves for 20 years to see if the groups end up having different rates of cancer. Heavy cell phone users tend to be different from light cell phone users in ways other than their cell phone use (they tend to have high stress jobs and tend to be less careful about their health), so just comparing those two groups doesn't tell us much.
There are no "cellphone related cancers". There are people who get brain tumors on the side of the head that they normally hold their cell phones. So they call them "cellphone related cancers". And if you introduce them to someone who is a light cell phone user who get a brain tumor on the side that they don't normally hold the phone on, these get dismissed as "non-cellphone related cancers". If the risk of getting a brain tumor is not increased by cell phone use, you still would expect that by random chance, half of them would get the tumor on the same side that they hold the phone on. Actually, some people will incorrectly remember how they usually held their phone once they found out they had a tumor on one side, so you'll get more than 50% (this is called recall bias, and if you tell me I have a tumor on my left side, I'm more likely to remember holding my phone on the left side and forget the times I held it on the right side). If cell phones do increase your risk of getting brain tumors, there's no way to say that any particular tumor was or wasn't caused by cell phones.
