Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: John Navas on 6 Jul 2010 09:57 On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:38:40 +0000 (UTC), in <i0t1qf$m7t$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote: >Larry wrote on [Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000]: >> Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote in >> news:ujb236pbt0umnad7rmcqav60qp55k20nd9(a)4ax.com: >> >>> Assuming the FCC want to make a substantial profit on this auction, it >>> would not make much sense for the broadcasters to sell. >> >> Huh?? The broadcasters don't own the frequencies they've been using since >> WW2. Those are all public airwaves. FCC doesn't need any permission as >> the broadcasters are slaves to the FCC, not the other way around.... >> >> I think it should be a Federal felony to SELL the public's airwaves to >> anyone or any entity. What the hell are they gonna sell next, Yellowstone >> National Park?! > >They should LEASE the airwaves, not sell them They LICENSE them. -- John If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive, then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 10:15 In article <i0v890$tkb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, George <george(a)nospam.invalid> 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. there is more than one issue that is involved. > 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. no, the current best fix is to not jump to conclusions and see what apple actually does and if it helps. > 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. nonsense and totally baseless.
From: nospam on 6 Jul 2010 10:18 In article <rjc6365lj6p3tlpcdprk0oom8ghg4d9rhh(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Google data (e.g., Contacts) are been backed up in the cloud from day 1. assuming you want that data in the cloud, that's good. > It's quite easy to backup all user content on the SD card. > Most people don't care enough to bother. that's exactly why iphones back up *everything* automatically, without requiring the user or the app developer to do anything special. it's laughable that android doesn't, but at least they've added the capability in 2.2.
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 6 Jul 2010 10:26 John Navas wrote: > 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. > For some people, losing all the phone numbers and appointments stored in their phones is a nuisance rather than a disaster. For others . . . . I was a computer system administrator for most of my working life. It made me very aware of the value of backups! If losing the data stored in your phone would be a disaster, you should be making disaster recovery plans! If you have no other means of doing it, paper, pencil, and you, will get the job done. Making a copy on your computer is usually more convenient. If you have a Motorola phone, "Motorola Phone Tools" is software for your PC that enables it to talk to your phone, backup your contacts, appointments, etc. The last time I checked, V5.5 was the current version! There are, or were, people selling V4.x; don't get sucked in to that little trap; V4.0 is not upgradeable or at least is not without some help from Motorola! If your phone isn't a Motorola phone, check with the store where you bought it; there should be some means of doing a backup and restore.
From: George on 6 Jul 2010 10:26
On 7/6/2010 10:15 AM, nospam wrote: > In article<i0v890$tkb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, George > <george(a)nospam.invalid> 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. > > there is more than one issue that is involved. > >> 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. > > no, the current best fix is to not jump to conclusions and see what > apple actually does and if it helps. > >> 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. > > nonsense and totally baseless. Clearly you don't even have an idea about what I just described but yet you decided to make yourself look silly. You really need to do some fact checking before making a declaration like that. Go and review how the current algorithm for displaying the bars works. Apology accepted |