Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: DevilsPGD on 6 Jul 2010 00:27 In message <050720101647417484%nospam(a)nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote: >In article <0sq4365fp0i4dbvqde0pqrqq74mk7n9egr(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD ><Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: > >> >the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big >> >dent in the claim that it's defective. >> >> A product can be both better in one way *and* defective in another way >> at the same time. > >yes it can but the lawsuits simply say it's defective and unfit to be >sold. that's demonstrably false when some people say it's better than >what they used to use. Consider an analogy... You buy a new laptop, it has twice the battery life but happens to have a bit of an electrical shock problem when it's plugged in and sitting in your lap. It's both an improvement for many *and* yet still unfit to be sold at the same time. Many won't ever have the problem because they use their laptops on desks or tables, or unplug when they're on the sofa. >why some people have problems and others don't is still not clear. some >people *can't* make the bars change or drop calls no matter how they >hold it. It seems pretty clear, from reading the various articles on this subject: To recreate the problem you need to be in an area with already marginal signal strength. This is hard to find since the iPhone lies about signal strength, but once you find the right spot it sounds like the problem is easy to reproduce.
From: George on 6 Jul 2010 08:41 On 7/5/2010 6:22 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<-YCdnYebC9qZoq_RnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Mike > Jacoubowsky<MikeJ(a)ChainReaction.com> wrote: > >> It *does* hold onto calls better than my 3G. Even hand-held. But it holds >> onto them even-better if you don't hold it across the left side. > > and that makes sense. touching an antenna will change things. that's > the laws of physics, and it's difficult to litigate those. :) Not really, from everything I read the issue is related to using the metal band as the antenna instead of the prior and commonly used on other phones embedded antenna. The current best fix is to give Steve another $30 for a "bumper" which greatly helps because it moves your hand further away from the antenna so there is less detuning and RF absorption from your hand. The other thing that isn't helping Apple is they chose to deceive folks by using an algorithm that displays full signal until there is almost none. > > the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big > dent in the claim that it's defective. nothing is perfect and obviously > there are some issues. whether they can be addressed in software > remains to be seen.
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 09:43 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:34:42 -0400, in <B66dnRTaC9Qhiq_RnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: >nospam wrote: >> In article <nrn336po7i4brbjjspua7e5h1o0ptb0nli(a)4ax.com>, John Navas >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Android devices are easily backed up by the user locally (to SD) or over >>> the air. "There's an app for that." But I'd guess(tm) the great >>> majority of Android users will never do that, relying instead on Google >>> sync (which I think a better bet than Microsoft) and on luck. >> >> backing up user data on android is a *new* feature coming in 2.2. it's >> mind-boggling how that was not included since day one. >> >> relying on the user to manually do it means that it is likely to not be >> done. some aspects of android, such as gmail, are cloud based but >> that's not really a backup. > >If the user doesn't make a backup somehow, he will sooner or later >regret it! That backup should preferably be on a device owned and >controlled by the user. Still almost any backup is better than none! Tempest in a teapot IMHO: Google data (e.g., Contacts) are been backed up in the cloud from day 1. It's quite easy to backup all user content on the SD card. Most people don't care enough to bother. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 09:48 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:07:02 -0400, in <op.vfeal0u5itl47o(a)acer250.gateway.2wire.net>, tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:04:14 -0400, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)anoospaml.com> wrote: > >> At 03 Jul 2010 23:25:55 -0400 tlvp wrote: >>> Case in point: the T-Mobile/Microsoft/Danger/Sidekick data-loss fiasco >>> not that long ago. Has all that lost data been reconstructed yet? >> >> Yes, about a week after the server crash. >> >> Of course that didn't make as many headlines as the loss did! ;) >> >> <http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-takes-credit-for-resolving- >> Sidekick-data-loss-but-not-for-causing-it/1255618540> > >Thanks, Todd. I was following this at the time, and it seems to me that >I recall, even several weeks after the loss, that only *some* of the data >had been fully recovered -- *all* of it for many customers, *most* of it >for some others, and little to none for the remainder. > >T-Mo Forums were rife with angry complaints from all but the first >group of customers. There was only a relatively small number of complaints, Essentially *all* the data was recovered. The only exceptions were those users who ignored advice to sit tight and wait, instead trying things on their own, which mangled their data, which they then complained about, even though it was their own fault. Such users probably wouldn't have done any better backing up data on their own, and would have still complained when something went wrong. There will always be those who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 09:57
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 10:38:35 -0700, in <mv2436tt31ho39d8ojqeuhja11sc7pan5f(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: >Whichever point of view you favor, it doesn't mater. My point was >that the FCC currently cannot do anything it pleases with the >auctioned frequencies. Of course not. That would be an unconstitutional taking. It would have to show something like fraud to set aside the license. >In addition, the USA is a member of the >ITU/WRC, which sets world wide usage for radio spectrum. While there >are plenty of anomalies, the process of "harmonizing" the allocations >and rules has been moving along nicely in the EU and slooooly in the >USA. The USA is sufficiently isolated from the rest of the world >(except for Canada and Mexico) on cellular frequencies that >interference should not be an issue unless deployed for satellite >service. Still, the ITU/WRC will need to investigate any interference >potential, which will take some time. Given our history and practice, I don't see this as a real issue. >They did have the proper security clauses in the auction terms. See >above quotation as in "conditional upon full and timely payment". That >is a standard clause in any such sales, leases, and rentals. >(No pay, no play). However, the Supremes decided that bankruptcy law >supercedes contract law. For a literal interpretation, this is >correct. That's not a security clause. That's a reversion clause. >Rhetorical questions: If I buy on credit some real estate, some stock >on margin, a new car, use my credit card wildly, and then declare >bankruptcy, what happens to the property, stock, car, and junk? As I >understand it, the bankruptcy administrator will declare those as >being un-necessary for my continued survival, and return them to the >creditors. It's not that simple -- what assets are protected in bankruptcy varies from state to state, and depends on what steps you've taken to protect assets. Both car and residence are protected in some case, and more can be protected with proper preparation. >It's not a difficult concept to appreciate. So, why >didn't the government bankruptcy court for Nextwave not do the same >thing with the licenses? At the same time (1997), Pocket Comm and DCR >PCS went Chapter 11, and made a deal with the FCC for the return of >the licenses in exchange for some of the deposit money. Why didn't >Nextwave do the same? Good questions. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |