NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: Mac Daddy on 4 Aug 2010 23:08 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-F6D2B7.16505904082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <i3cu9g$e29$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > >> On 08-04-2010 11:40, Alan Baker wrote: >> > The first refuge of the weak-minded. >> >> Call me weak-minded, not because I use a killfile, but >> because it took me this long to figure out Navas belongs >> there. > > That's why I said "first refuge". There are definitely people one should > killfile. It just amuses me when I see it happening simply because > someone is losing an argument. > > :-) So many battles. On so many fronts. Get a life.
From: Snit on 4 Aug 2010 23:35 Tim Adams stated in post teadams$2$0$0$3-2485B0.18572604082010(a)70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net on 8/4/10 3:57 PM: > regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, > you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting > the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm You deny you beg for my attention and troll me in your every post - but here you are doing so again. So when will you find *any* post where you neglected to do so? Oh. You cannot. -- [INSERT .SIG HERE]
From: nospam on 4 Aug 2010 23:36 In article <au9k5611f42k8ecfau0iiq11klqebe2b2u(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:29:33 -0700, in > <alangbaker-79D810.18293304082010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker > <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > >You do realize that the whole antenna issue is looking more and more > >like the non-issue that some of us said it was... > > > >...right? > > On the contrary -- see data from Jeff and the citation I posted. his data is not real world, much like your claim about specs of temperature extremes not being all that relevant. changewave just did a survey of people who actually own the iphone 4 (real world data, oh no) and found that overall, the iphone 4 is outperforming just about all other smartphones (their words), although it's a little less than the 3gs. nearly 2/3rds of the respondents do *not* find the antenna to be a problem and an additional 14% think it's a minor issue. for the math impaired that's about 80% who think it's not a big deal. of the remaining users, 14% think the antenna issue is somewhat of a problem and only 7% think it's a serious problem. that's pretty good for a phone that the media would like you to believe is fatally flawed. the survey also notes that the #1 complaint is about at&t (not the antenna) and also that the iphone 4 is dropping *fewer* calls than the previous 3gs, even though at&t's overall call drop rate has gone *up*. also, norway tested the iphone 4 and found that it's not a problem there and is blaming everything on at&t. i know someone who uses an unlocked iphone 4 on t-mobile usa and has no issues at all. so no, it really isn't a big deal, according to actual users.
From: nospam on 4 Aug 2010 23:38 In article <uaak5653diku4j78lid5bn9voug1ruffuc(a)4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote: > On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:29:33 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > >You do realize that the whole antenna issue is looking more and more > >like the non-issue that some of us said it was... > > See: > <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm> > > >...right? > > Nope. The iPhone 4 is at least between 6 and 18 times more affected > by touching the antenna than the worst conventional cell phone I > tested. Double that again for the typical cell phone. It's not a > problem in strong signal areas, but might drop the call in a weak > signal area. now try real world tests. changewave found that the iphone 4 is dropping *fewer* calls than the 3gs, and roughly 80% of iphone 4 users don't find the antenna issue to be much of a problem, but they do think at&t sucks, the #1 complaint.
From: Larry on 5 Aug 2010 00:28
Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in news:alangbaker-18C019.17523204082010(a)news.shawcable.com: > In article <Xns9DCAD0F8422FAnoonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, > Larry <noone(a)home.com> wrote: > >> Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in news:alangbaker- >> E22D8B.10035004082010(a)news.shawcable.com: >> >> >> How much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? >> > >> > How much are you being paid to malign it? Because whoever is doing >> > it should get a refund. Referencing the same lawsuit over and over >> > doesn't make it any more evidence of an actual problem. >> > >> > >> >> So, how much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? > > Who's paying you to malign it? They should get a refund. > STill no answer to the question I see.... So, how much is Jobs paying you to defend the company? -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry |