Re: TI-H: What we need to concentrate on with the RF


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: What we need to concentrate on with the RF



I don't quite think it fair for you to say that you invented the idea of the
RF link.. I think everyone that has ever used a TI has wanted an RF link and
some people decided to do somthing.. 


At 03:32 PM 11/6/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Okay. This was my idea. DON'T GO TAKING CONTROL OF IT. I know an
>infrequently used IRC server we could log on to. The problem with that is
>that everyone needs to read everything. You can't get that with IRC.
>
>Basically, Eric, DON'T take control of my idea. I presented it to the list.
>I'm trying to put it all together. DON'T knock other's idea's. It may be
>brilliant. DON'T talk if you're uninformed. You've asked a lot of diddly
>questions. You fill up the list with your comments. IR is important to. RF
>may not work. So DON'Ttry and kill another idea.
>
>DON'T TRY TO TAKE CREDIT AND/OR CONTROL OF THE RF LINK. WHEN YOU WRITE MAIL
>LIKE THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>
>     /--------------------------------\
>    /         Travis Pettijohn         \
>   /    primary:  travisp@inil.com      \
>  /   alternate:  travisp@juno.com       \
> /   http://www.inil.com/users/travisp/   \
>/------------------------------------------\
>I assume no liability for any advice I give.
>
>> From: Robin, Jim, &amp; Eric Barker <rbarker@polarnet.com>
>> To: TI-Hardware <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
>> Subject: TI-H: What we need to concentrate on with the RF
>> Date: Monday, November 04, 1996 11:49 PM
>> 
>> Ok here are some things we should stick to with the RF (whatever that 
>> stands for) link, here is what we need to concentrate on):
>> 
>>   1. Lets stop talking about the IR link, it's not as affective as the 
>> RF link.
>>   2. A two calc radio connection (not 3 or more)
>>   3. The user should be able to change the frequency, no making 2 
>> different links, that's a waste.
>>   4. The link needs to be able to go over long distences.  More than 50 
>> feet away if possible.
>>   5. We need to use a high frequency band for interference and clarity 
>> reasons.
>> 
>> For an issue link this, e-mail is rediculus.  We need a full IRC telnet, 
>> (MUD) type chat area to disscuss the RF link.  It would be nice if there 
>> were more chat area's link this.  If Mangus is listening, please, this 
>> would be very nice and we could get things done much faster.
>> 
>> Eric Barker
>
>


	David Lee
>>POINT FOUR TECHNOLOGIES<<




  


References: