Josh,

I see!  If you insist about the artic having no multilingual support, go 
complain to these people!  Grin!

> ----- Original Message -----
>From: Josh Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Braillenote List <[email protected]
>Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: re: [Braillenote] waterproof the BN

>the people that make the artic notetakers are artictech.com that is:

>http://www.artictech.com add that to your favorites in your bn's <smile.> 
>Their notetakers are nice and cheap! You can get a transtype qwerty artic 
>notetaker for about $1300.  Why not bring the voicenotes down to that price? 
>The only thing I don't like about the artic is there is no multilingual 
>support.

>Josh


>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: Todd Patkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: Braillenote List <[email protected]
>>Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:18:29 +0000 (GMT)
>>Subject: re: [Braillenote] waterproof the BN

>>Josh,

>>You are so talkative this time because you wrote 5 messages to the list this 
>>morning!  WOW!!!  Why not you become a representative for PDI so that you 
>>could discuss anything about improving the BN?  Smile.

>>Actually, aluminum is best for waterproofing, and it is also light best for 
>>transporting.  Brass is more expensive and is usually alloyed with other 
>>metals.  Most people do not know this fact.  Meanwhile, copper is best for 
>>electrical/electronical conduction.  Copper is cheaper.

>>Who made Artic?

>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Josh Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>To: Braillenote List <[email protected]
>>>Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 07:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
>>>Subject: re: [Braillenote] waterproof the BN

>>>I don't know if this is a solution, but I know that my old artic braillepad 
>>>had a nice aluminum case instead of a plastic one.  Meaning, the cover of 
>>>the artic notetaker itself was made of aluminum.  It was a nice rugged case. 
>>> Also, there's the issue of the braille display.  Why not use metal pins for 
>>>the display or aluminum or brass pins which don't rust?

>>>Josh


Reply via email to