Let the games begin!
in [Wireless Internet]
|
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 3 Jul 2010 18:49 Justin wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:38:32 -0400]: >> Justin wrote: >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:40:59 -0400]: >>>> Justin wrote: >>>>> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]: >>>>>> Justin <nospam(a)insightbb.com> wrote in news:i0nbhl$pcn$1(a)news.eternal- >>>>>> september.org: >>>>>> >>>>>>> data mining. >>>>>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing..... >>>>> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud >>>> Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in the >>>> cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to it? >>> That's why I encrypt the data I sent to my cloud backup service. My email >>> already travels unencrypted across less trustworthy servers than google >>> between the end user hitting send and me receiving it. I trust comcast >>> a whole bunch less than google. AT&T even less than Comcast, yet how >>> many people use one of those as their ISP? >>> >>> The cloud is not a single entity, it's Amazon, it's Google, it's Microsoft, >>> it's facebook, it's Yahoo, etc. >>> You need to pick who you want to trust and for what service. It's no different >>> than trusting your doctor with your medical records. Or perhaps which pharmacy >>> you trust when you fill your prescription. >>> >> Thanks! >> >> I think I will continue to backup my phone to my computer. I also have >> very similar data on my PDA if I should happen to need it. If all three >> sources are somehow destroyed I probably won't be in any condition to >> care! > > That's a nice theory, but if you are at the grocery store during a storm and your > house is blown away with your computer, and you get caught in a heavy downpour and your > phone gets wet and stops working, you can still be in pretty good condition > and have lost it all. I think I can take that risk!
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 3 Jul 2010 19:12 nospam wrote: > In article <e8ou26dsgau6j2v4u3i09872fok1d95uam(a)4ax.com>, Jeff > Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > >>> "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas" >>> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009625-260.html> >> At first, Apple said this was a problem common to any phone >> and suggested buying a rubber case or holding the phone >> differently. >> Translation: Apple doesn't have a clue about RF and is now in damage >> control mode. Blaming the victim is a great start. > > other companies do it too. > > nokia dictates how to hold their phones: > <http://funsizebytes.com/post/745721120/instructions-from-my-nokia-2320> > > here's another: > <http://i48.tinypic.com/x0xsi9.jpg> > > there are plenty of others. > >> <http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/2> >> Apple has gone a step further and tuned the phone to utilize >> whichever network band is less congested or has the least >> interference for the best signal quality, regardless of the >> actual signal strength. Early reports suggest this feature, >> while buggy in its early stages, will greatly improve the >> phone's reliability on AT&T's fragile network. >> Translation: Apple uses the SNR (signal quality) and not the signal >> strength (-dBM) to control the phone. > > some other phones also use snr. there was an issue way way back with > sprint where people would complain that one phone showed the maximum > number of bars and another sitting right next to it had 1-2 bars. the > reason that one showed snr and the other showed strength. > > i don't remember which phones those were, but i do remember the nokia > 6185 having horrible reception compared to just about every other > sprint cellphone at the time. no lawsuits for that one though. :) > >> From various reports, the iPhone 4 drops more like 3-4 bars when the >> antenna tip is touched. If that's true (I haven't played with an >> iPhone 4 yet), that's a -30dB or more drop, which is far too sensitive >> to survive hand contact. >> >> My very unofficial conversion table from -dBm to bars: >> Bars -dBm >> 1 -102 to -112 >> 2 -94 to -101 >> 3 -87 to -93 >> 4 -77 to -86 >> 5 -38 to -76 >> tested on my VX8100. > > according to anandtech tests, it's: -113, -107, -103, -101, -91, -51 > > <http://www.anandtech.com/show/3794/the-iphone-4-review/2> > > it also says: > > I can honestly say that I've never held onto so many calls and data > simultaneously on 1 bar at -113 dBm as I have with the iPhone 4, so > it's readily apparent that the new baseband hardware is much more > sensitive compared to what was in the 3GS. The difference is that > reception is massively better on the iPhone 4 in actual use. > >> Note that projecting external antennas have been on cell phones since >> the stone age. Internal antenna are a recent development. Touching >> the antenna on an old external antenna cell phone had little effect, >> so it's there's no reason an external antenna shouldn't work on the >> iPhone 4. Something else is going on, but without an iPhone 4 to play >> with, I'm guessing. > > holding the pull-out antenna has an effect on my old cellphone, and the > instructions that came with it say not to do that. That makes sense! Any antenna intended for use by a transmitter must be carefully matched to the transmitter. If carefully done, most of the transmitter's signal is radiated which is what you want. Modifying the antenna, e.g. by adding part of your body, can result in an impedance mismatch which can cause the signal to be reflected back into the transmitter rather than being radiated, which, being translated, means that your call may not go through or you may get very poor reception or both. I think that most modern cell phones use only an internal antenna. Some of the older phones had a telescoping antenna a whole three or four inches long.
From: Todd Allcock on 3 Jul 2010 19:20 At 03 Jul 2010 09:50:24 -0700 Jeff Liebermann wrote: > From various reports, the iPhone 4 drops more like 3-4 bars when the > antenna tip is touched. If that's true (I haven't played with an > iPhone 4 yet), that's a -30dB or more drop, which is far too sensitive > to survive hand contact. > > My very unofficial conversion table from -dBm to bars: > Bars -dBm > 1 -102 to -112 > 2 -94 to -101 > 3 -87 to -93 > 4 -77 to -86 > 5 -38 to -76 > tested on my VX8100. I like that meter. My HTC-built Sony X1 (great PDA, terrible phone) switches from 5 bars to 4 at -90 dbm. That's a meter designed to "hide" a lousy phone! Consequently, I get very little warning before losing signal entirely. The bars drop from 5 to 0 rather quickly in weak areas.
From: nospam on 3 Jul 2010 19:38 In article <vBPXn.6752$Lj2.1476(a)newsfe05.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > I like that meter. My HTC-built Sony X1 (great PDA, terrible phone) > switches from 5 bars to 4 at -90 dbm. That's a meter designed to "hide" > a lousy phone! Consequently, I get very little warning before losing > signal entirely. The bars drop from 5 to 0 rather quickly in weak areas. they're deceiving you. time for a lawsuit. :)
From: David on 3 Jul 2010 20:21
In article <622t261obucbj2tim2juellbdefd8o6gms(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jncl1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas" > <http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009625-260.html> Strange why people are just complaining about the new phone, my 3GS has always dropped signal strength remarkably if I hold it with my hand around the top half/ The difference is that it will go from 3bars to no bars depending on how I hold it, and that is with a case on it David |