|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > October 2007 > Re: Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!
|
|
|
|
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
31A78E.13160026092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> the great news continues with the iPhone...
>
> now a British firm has VoIP running on the iPhone, so just connect up to
> a common WiFi signal and you get your calls for free worldwide...
There is no common wifi signal, pinhead.
>
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> There is no common wifi signal, pinhead.
8021.xxa-z is as "common" as it gets for wireless...
no more cell monopoly is the benefit.
it sounds like you are still living in 2006... wake up scott!
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-8695D4.15145226092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> 8021.xxa-z is as "common" as it gets for wireless...
>
> no more cell monopoly is the benefit.
>
> it sounds like you are still living in 2006... wake up scott!
>
Actually, I'm living in 2007:
Motorola Demonstrates World's First WiMAX 802.16e Mobile Handoffs in
Downtown Chicago
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds...AQW04326092007-
1.htm
Bet you can't do that with your old wifi technology.
But you keep touting that dinosaur technology that you're in love with. It
cements that appearance of you being totally out of touch with the real
world.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-31A78E.13160026092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> the great news continues with the iPhone...
>
> now a British firm has VoIP running on the iPhone, so just connect up to
> a common WiFi signal
Just make sure you're not stealing it, or using a signal without the
owner's PRIOR permission, because that will send you to jail.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> Just make sure you're not stealing it, or using a signal without the
> owner's PRIOR permission, because that will send you to jail.
Elmo, always the funny comedian!
No, you don't need prior permission. If a signal is "open", it's
completely free use. No wonder you get confused on this subject!
You always want a base station to be "open" that way more people can
benefit from the 802.11 revolution!
Elmo, you're an old man with old ideas, please die already.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Actually, I'm living in 2007:
>
> Motorola Demonstrates World's First WiMAX 802.16e Mobile Handoffs in
> Downtown Chicago
>
> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds...AQW04326092007-
> 1.htm
>
> Bet you can't do that with your old wifi technology.
>
> But you keep touting that dinosaur technology that you're in love with. It
> cements that appearance of you being totally out of touch with the real
> world.
But Chicago is a den of thieves, they have no respect in the modern tech
world.
WiMax will be open and free once it's fully implemented. You don't want
to encourage firms using it "for pay". That wouldn't make sense.
Sorry Scott, you are again lost on the "whole goal" of free wireless.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-80BBAD.15503926092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
> Elmo, always the funny comedian!
>
> No, you don't need prior permission. If a signal is "open", it's
> completely free use.
So if the front door is unlocked, does that mean your welcome to enter?
> No wonder you get confused on this subject!
No cinfusion on Elmo's part, pinhead.
>
> You always want a base station to be "open" that way more people can
> benefit from the 802.11 revolution!
That way you get to change providers more frequently due to the myriad of
TOS violations.
>
> Elmo, you're an old man with old ideas, please die already.
>
You're the one with the old ideas, Oxturd. You're clinging to 10 year old
technology. The world has passed by the wifi days- better things are right
around the corner. You should really try catching up, numbnuts.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DC53CE.15544026092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> But Chicago is a den of thieves, they have no respect in the modern
> tech world.
What does that have to do with the post, you moron?
>
> WiMax will be open and free once it's fully implemented.
Citation?
> You don't
> want to encourage firms using it "for pay". That wouldn't make sense.
You using the word "sense" doesn't make sense.
| |
| George 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
> Elmo, always the funny comedian!
>
> No, you don't need prior permission. If a signal is "open", it's
> completely free use. No wonder you get confused on this subject!
>
> You always want a base station to be "open" that way more people can
> benefit from the 802.11 revolution!
Right, you aren't even consistent with your own arguments. You just
described how you charge people to use your Wi-Fi network because the
"free Wi-Fi" that is everywhere isn't everywhere yet.
>
> Elmo, you're an old man with old ideas, please die already.
Nice thought. Adults defend themselves by being consistent and not
making clueless assertions that can't be substantiated. Just because you
are so enthusiastic that you want to have Steve Jobs baby doesn't give
you a pass from making sense.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> What does that have to do with the post, you moron?
It has ALL to do with Motorola still believes the most THIEVES live in
the Chicago area. Which I think most people would agree. So MOT is
playing to their primal nature.
Please try and keep up Scott, you fail at every turn when trying to
reply to me. So step it up a notch or forgo replying.
>
> Citation?
The Future, that's all that needs to be cited...
>
> You using the word "sense" doesn't make sense.
In a "perfect" world, all phone calls to anywhere in the world would be
ENTIRELY free. Can we at least agree on that?
That makes PERFECT sense... correct?
But "since" you are "slow", something called the Web was created on a
NeXT machine about 17 years ago, it ushered in a whole new era of making
things "free" wherever the "data" is. A Phone call is JUST a DATA
STREAM... it's not an "Analog Transition" anymore.
So it should be FREE.
There is really no argument here. Just the "old school cell mafia"
trying to prop up the dying Cell Companies and Apple trying to make
things as cheap as possible so PEOPLE can call all around the world for
free.
Learn your Apple history Scott, it really sounds like you have no idea
about what is about to happen. Apple CRUSHES obsolete industries, it's
all they know how to do.
There is NO REASON to pay ATT, Verizon, TMobile, etc, etc a PENNY in
this new age.
And Apple is going to be the first to do it on a large scale.
-
| |
| Reality 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-8695D4.15145226092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> 8021.xxa-z is as "common" as it gets for wireless...
>
> no more cell monopoly is the benefit.
>
> it sounds like you are still living in 2006... wake up scott!
It is amazing to me just how clueless and wrong one can be (you Oxford).
Or...?? (see last paragraph)
YOU reminds me of those nutjobs that deny the moon landing, 9/11 or a round earth.
They spout the most outrageous, stupid and fictional loads of crap and stick to their guns
even when the actual truth is undeniable, airtight and is shown to them over and
over and over..... It has bitten them repeatedly, yet they go on with their fictional fantasy,
rabid and utterly clueless to the end. Delusional fanaticism is a good descriptor.
You, Oxford are one of - them. Remember the Black Knight in Python's Holy Grail?
Both arms and both legs hacked off - powerless, yet still being belligerent and fighting on.
Pathetic actually.
Scott is certainly MUCH more informed than you, Oxford. And lives here on Planet Earth.
In the REAL world. Dealing with facts - not fantasy. You just don't get it - ANY of it actually.
The fact that you think WiFi is going to take over the world is quite laughable in itself.
Not knowing what WiMax is - gives you bonus moron points.
Then saying that WiFi will kill cellular makes you an idiot - LESS than ZERO credibility.
Well into the negative territory actually.
Or, you are an outrageous troll that actually believes none of the bullshit he's spewing.
Just seeing who will take the bait.
| |
| Reality 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-3DDDD8.16402126092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> It has ALL to do with Motorola still believes the most THIEVES live in
> the Chicago area. Which I think most people would agree. So MOT is
> playing to their primal nature.
>
> Please try and keep up Scott, you fail at every turn when trying to
> reply to me. So step it up a notch or forgo replying.
>
>
> The Future, that's all that needs to be cited...
>
>
> In a "perfect" world, all phone calls to anywhere in the world would be
> ENTIRELY free. Can we at least agree on that?
>
> That makes PERFECT sense... correct?
>
> But "since" you are "slow", something called the Web was created on a
> NeXT machine about 17 years ago, it ushered in a whole new era of making
> things "free" wherever the "data" is. A Phone call is JUST a DATA
> STREAM... it's not an "Analog Transition" anymore.
>
> So it should be FREE.
>
> There is really no argument here. Just the "old school cell mafia"
> trying to prop up the dying Cell Companies and Apple trying to make
> things as cheap as possible so PEOPLE can call all around the world for
> free.
>
> Learn your Apple history Scott, it really sounds like you have no idea
> about what is about to happen. Apple CRUSHES obsolete industries, it's
> all they know how to do.
>
> There is NO REASON to pay ATT, Verizon, TMobile, etc, etc a PENNY in
> this new age.
>
> And Apple is going to be the first to do it on a large scale.
>
> -
Do you REALLY believe the horseshit you spew Oxford??
Too much to go point by point - it's ALL fantasy. Delusional actually.
It's becoming pathetic. Too loony to be written off as a fanboy anymore.
Starting to get into mental health territory....
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> And how many letters of that alphabet does your phone support? Two,
> same as mine.
sure, but I can always get a new phone once the 802.xxx protocols roll
out. here is a rough list of what is about to happen:
enjoy!
----
802.11 - The original 1 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz RF and IR standard
(1999)
802.11a - 54 Mbit/s, 5 GHz standard (1999, shipping products in 2001)
802.11b - Enhancements to 802.11 to support 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s (1999)
802.11c - Bridge operation procedures; included in the IEEE 802.1D
standard (2001)
802.11d - International (country-to-country) roaming extensions (2001)
802.11e - Enhancements: QoS, including packet bursting (2005)
802.11F - Inter-Access Point Protocol (2003) Withdrawn February 2006
802.11g - 54 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz standard (backwards compatible with b)
(2003)
802.11h - Spectrum Managed 802.11a (5 GHz) for European compatibility
(2004)
802.11i - Enhanced security (2004)
802.11j - Extensions for Japan (2004)
802.11k - Radio resource measurement enhancements (proposed - 2007?)
802.11l - (reserved and will not be used)
802.11m - Maintenance of the standard; odds and ends. (ongoing)
802.11n - Higher throughput improvements using MIMO (multiple input,
multiple output antennas) (pre-draft - 2007?)
802.11o - (reserved and will not be used)
802.11p - WAVE - Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment (such as
ambulances and passenger cars) (working - 2008?)
802.11q - (reserved and will not be used, can be confused with 802.1Q
VLAN trunking)
802.11r - Fast roaming Working "Task Group r" - 2007
802.11s - ESS Mesh Networking (working - 2008?)
802.11T - Wireless Performance Prediction (WPP) - test methods and
metrics Recommendation (working - 2008?)
802.11u - Interworking with non-802 networks (for example, cellular)
(proposal evaluation - ?)
802.11v - Wireless network management (early proposal stages - ?)
802.11w - Protected Management Frames (early proposal stages - 2008?)
802.11x - (reserved and will not be used)
802.11y - 3650-3700 Operation in the U.S
and what is up next.... bye bye cell companies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11#Protocols
-
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
3DDDD8.16402126092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
touch[color=darkred]
>
> It has ALL to do with Motorola still believes the most THIEVES live in
> the Chicago area. Which I think most people would agree. So MOT is
> playing to their primal nature.
Wow- what a prejudicial statement from someone touting to knwo it all.
So, in addition to being an idiot you also judge people stereotypically.
How juvenile- no surprise.
Of course, you tried to deflect the fact that your beloved wifi just
became woefully obsolete. You need to step it up a notch or forgo
replying.
>
> Please try and keep up Scott, you fail at every turn when trying to
> reply to me. So step it up a notch or forgo replying.
>
>
> The Future, that's all that needs to be cited...
Translation- there are no facts to back up your claim. Idiot troll.
>
sense.[color=darkred]
>
> In a "perfect" world, all phone calls to anywhere in the world would
be
> ENTIRELY free. Can we at least agree on that?
No- in a "perfect" world. people would pay a fair and reasonable price
for the service and products they use and consume while being paid a
fair and reasonable wage for the work that they do. Your "perfect"
world has been attempted and it failed miserably.
>
> That makes PERFECT sense... correct?
No.
>
> But "since" you are "slow", something called the Web was created on a
> NeXT machine about 17 years ago, it ushered in a whole new era of
making
> things "free" wherever the "data" is.
Wrong- it created an era where the data was freely exchanged. However,
the definiton of "freely" means 'without hinderance' and not having
anything to do with cost.
There has always been a price affixed to the storage and transmission of
data in the real world. Data is just a commodity no different than oil,
electricity. water, milk or produce.
> A Phone call is JUST a DATA
> STREAM... it's not an "Analog Transition" anymore.
You're the only one talking about phone calls- there's that digruntled
ex-employee coming out in you again.
>
> So it should be FREE.
As free as heat, water and food should be.
>
> There is really no argument here. Just the "old school cell mafia"
> trying to prop up the dying Cell Companies and Apple trying to make
> things as cheap as possible so PEOPLE can call all around the world
for
> free.
Who's doing that? Me? I haven't mentioned anything to do with cellular
companies. Your paranoia is starting to show.
>
> Learn your Apple history Scott, it really sounds like you have no idea
> about what is about to happen. Apple CRUSHES obsolete industries, it's
> all they know how to do.
I know my Apple history. They had the largest market share in the
consumer computer market and got caught up in their own pomposity. Now
they are a second rate player in the market. Same with OS's. They
created the first commercially viable digital music player, but will
soon go the way of the Sony Walkman. It's all they know how to do.
Name an "obsolete industry" they have crushed.
>
> There is NO REASON to pay ATT, Verizon, TMobile, etc, etc a PENNY in
> this new age.
>
No reason except convenience, functionality, features, coverage and ease
of use
> And Apple is going to be the first to do it on a large scale.
>
Really? Then why are they aggressively exploring Wimax, which will
require them to put chips in their devices that will connect to a not-
free network?
Keep up, junior- you're looking like a simpleton again.
> -
>
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
> Do you REALLY believe the horseshit you spew Oxford??
> Too much to go point by point - it's ALL fantasy. Delusional actually.
>
> It's becoming pathetic. Too loony to be written off as a fanboy anymore.
> Starting to get into mental health territory....
What is there to "believe"? I just see all this close up. And you don't
"yet"...
So who is wrong? Someone living in the past and doesn't want to face the
future like you? Or someone that seriously examines what is happening
and points the way?
My bet is on the later.
-
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesmacs-3DDDD8.16402126092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> It has ALL to do with Motorola still believes the most THIEVES live in
> the Chicago area. Which I think most people would agree. So MOT is
> playing to their primal nature.
>
> Please try and keep up Scott, you fail at every turn when trying to
> reply to me. So step it up a notch or forgo replying.
>
>
> The Future, that's all that needs to be cited...
>
>
> In a "perfect" world, all phone calls to anywhere in the world would be
> ENTIRELY free. Can we at least agree on that?
>
> That makes PERFECT sense... correct?
>
> But "since" you are "slow", something called the Web was created on a
> NeXT machine about 17 years ago, it ushered in a whole new era of making
> things "free" wherever the "data" is. A Phone call is JUST a DATA
> STREAM... it's not an "Analog Transition" anymore.
>
> So it should be FREE.
>
> There is really no argument here. Just the "old school cell mafia"
> trying to prop up the dying Cell Companies and Apple trying to make
> things as cheap as possible so PEOPLE can call all around the world for
> free.
>
> Learn your Apple history Scott, it really sounds like you have no idea
> about what is about to happen. Apple CRUSHES obsolete industries, it's
> all they know how to do.
>
> There is NO REASON to pay ATT, Verizon, TMobile, etc, etc a PENNY in
> this new age.
>
> And Apple is going to be the first to do it on a large scale.
>
> -
But you previously said:
"http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
"sell your air"... what a concept..."
AND
"free is just when you are driving around town, but for a consistent,
month to month connection it's easy to charge until "free" becomes
ubiquitous.
do it now while you still can"
You can't have it both ways. lol
-
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in news:vYBKi.306409$5y.246034
@newsfe18.lga:
> But you previously said:
>
> "http://www.linspot.com/linspot.html
> "sell your air"... what a concept..."
>
> AND
>
> "free is just when you are driving around town, but for a consistent,
> month to month connection it's easy to charge until "free" becomes
> ubiquitous.
> do it now while you still can"
>
> You can't have it both ways. lol
>
> -
>
That's the problem with someone who's making things up on the fly- they
forget the crap that has already spewed from their mouth.
>
>
>
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Right, you aren't even consistent with your own arguments. You just
> described how you charge people to use your Wi-Fi network because the
> "free Wi-Fi" that is everywhere isn't everywhere yet.
Yes, there is overlap... kinda like Newspapers. Remember when people
actually subscribed to them? But then also shared them with their
neighbors? Same thing here... but Wireless.
>
> Nice thought. Adults defend themselves by being consistent and not
> making clueless assertions that can't be substantiated. Just because you
> are so enthusiastic that you want to have Steve Jobs baby doesn't give
> you a pass from making sense.
George, I know you like to live in the past, and there is NOTHING wrong
with that. But I like to show the way to how things will be in 10-20
years, not stare at my feet and say "today" will be like "tomorrow".
Apple has now entered into a VERY non-competitive market (cell phones)
so I have a obligation to let them known what is about to happen. I've
studied this phenomena for years and while I feel for the loss of jobs
the iPhone will create, I don't feel for the unproductive people that
are locked into an old phone system.
My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
switching from Satellites in the late 50's... and he is in total awe of
the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless throughout
his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
People like Scott, Elmo don't have this background, I do... enough said.
--
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A50E0C.17405226092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, there is overlap... kinda like Newspapers. Remember when people
> actually subscribed to them? But then also shared them with their
> neighbors? Same thing here... but Wireless.
>
>
> George, I know you like to live in the past, and there is NOTHING
> wrong with that. But I like to show the way to how things will be in
> 10-20 years, not stare at my feet and say "today" will be like
> "tomorrow".
>
> Apple has now entered into a VERY non-competitive market (cell phones)
> so I have a obligation to let them known what is about to happen. I've
> studied this phenomena for years and while I feel for the loss of jobs
> the iPhone will create, I don't feel for the unproductive people that
> are locked into an old phone system.
>
> My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
> switching from Satellites in the late 50's... and he is in total awe
> of the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless
> throughout his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
>
> People like Scott, Elmo don't have this background, I do... enough
> said.
>
> --
>
Sorry, turdboy- you don't have a clue about my background. Mine is
based on real world applicaiton of everything being discussed here. I
don't "study" it as you so- I do it every day. The fact that you are
using Wikipedia as an authoritative source in your posts simply
demonstrates your inexperience in the field. You are simply a whiny
consumer withthe world's next greatest idea. Even the rest of the
Apples fanboys have deserted you in your land of make believe. So why
don't you go put your Transfomer jammies on and have Daddy read you some
more fairy tales.
| |
| Ness_net 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C825CA.17300026092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> "Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>
>
> What is there to "believe"? I just see all this close up. And you don't
> "yet"...
>
> So who is wrong? Someone living in the past and doesn't want to face the
> future like you? Or someone that seriously examines what is happening
> and points the way?
>
> My bet is on the later.
>
> -
A bet you will most certainly loose.
It's one thing "facing" up to something based on fact.
(Which NONE of your senseless blather is)
It's another making outrageous claims based on opinion and fanboy stupidity.
With (your) ZERO facts to back ANY of it up. Thin air....
"Close up"...?? You keep inferring you have some insider track?
Stock boy at an Apple store? Janitor? High school kid fanboy wanna be?
(which is what you act like BTW)
Trust me, I'm someone actually "close up" daily to telecom
You obviously don't have anywhere near an actual clue.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> And the law allows unfettered access to the inside? You are allowed to
> freely make use ofthe contents behind that open door?
The Law makes no provision, in "polite" society.
Maybe you live in a rough side of town, is that the cause of your
ignorance? I see that you still are trying to use Windows, so by default
you are poorly educated. Is there anything else we should know about
your knowledge of the future?
>
> Why would you? Mommy and Daddy check it every night for you.
What? It's open right now and has been for about a year. Why would you
lock a door? Honestly? Are you afraid of monsters?
>
> You seem to be fixated on cell phone companies. I think I've figured it
> out- you're either the underpaid janitor at a cellular call center or a
> disgruntled ex-employee that got fired.
No, I'm just pointing out the next industry to fall in Apple's path.
They killed the mainframe, killed the traditional print industry, killed
CDs, now are focused on wiping out TV and Phones.
Is that wrong?
>
> the RIAA says hello.
The RIAA has no power over wireless transmissions. catch a clue.
>
> It must be chemical imbalance- it's not possible that you were born so
> stupid.
I'm just very clear. And it hurts sometimes, sorry facts are getting in
your way.
>
> Hardly.
Wait 2 years and call me back over VoIP. Then we'll talk...
>
> And I yearn for you to get a clue.
Ah, so you admit you don't know about binary. Your world is still
punchcards and analog cell signals. Thanks. Note taken.
>
> They've never entered a mrket witl old technology until the iPhone, you
> idiot.
>
>
> Now that was funny.
See you in 2-3 years with full VoIP on the iPhone... you can take a peek
into the future here:
(View the Demo - IF you are Brave)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat.html
It's all coming in less than 30 days!
---
| |
| Ness_net 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A50E0C.17405226092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
>
> My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
> switching from Satellites in the late 50's... and he is in total awe of
> the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless throughout
> his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
>
> People like Scott, Elmo don't have this background, I do... enough said.
Sitting at uncle's knee and listening to the tall tales now makes one an expert??
So..... exactly WHAT background DO you have? Put up - or shut up!!
There are a number of telecom insiders that frequent a.c.v. People that actually
KNOW what they are talking about. Do it daily for a living.
Oxford, you are engaging in a modern precision munitions battle - armed with
only a (small) pocket knife.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DAE35B.17590626092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> The Law makes no provision, in "polite" society.
The law most certainly does make a provision. You are obviously not
educated enough to know that.
>
> Maybe you live in a rough side of town,
Nope- living better than you, as a matter of fact.
> is that the cause of your
> ignorance?
Ignorance? Hardly- I live in the real world.
> I see that you still are trying to use Windows, so by
> default you are poorly educated.
And I see that you are trying to use your brain for something other than
an ear seperator. And in doing so, you are showing who poorly educated
poster is.
> Is there anything else we should know
> about your knowledge of the future?
Sure- I was programming before you were born. Today, companies pay
quite a nice price to get my opinion and input in the future of their
operations. I've seen more new technology in the last month than you've
ever been exposed to.
>
>
> What? It's open right now and has been for about a year. Why would you
> lock a door? Honestly? Are you afraid of monsters?
Oh, I get it- the box you live in doesn't have a flap.
>
>
> No, I'm just pointing out the next industry to fall in Apple's path.
> They killed the mainframe,
No- Micorsoft killed the mainframe.
> killed the traditional print industry,
Um- no.
> killed CDs,
no- p2p killed CD's.
> now are focused on wiping out TV and Phones.
Oh boy- how exciting.
>
> Is that wrong?
No- you are worng, as usual.
>
>
> The RIAA has no power over wireless transmissions. catch a clue.
But they have vbeen responsible for some of those terms, ewhich are
enforceable in a court of law. Do your research, junior.
>
>
> I'm just very clear. And it hurts sometimes, sorry facts are getting
> in your way.
What facts?
>
>
> Wait 2 years and call me back over VoIP. Then we'll talk...
VOIP is a dying industry.
>
>
> Ah, so you admit you don't know about binary. Your world is still
> punchcards and analog cell signals. Thanks. Note taken.
>
>
> See you in 2-3 years with full VoIP on the iPhone... you can take a
> peek into the future here:
>
> (View the Demo - IF you are Brave)
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/features/ichat.html
>
> It's all coming in less than 30 days!
>
>
Not impressive at all. It must be your inferior education that makes
you think that it is the best thing ever.
---
>
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-26, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
> switching from Satellites in the late 50's... and he is in total awe of
> the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless throughout
> his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
Your uncle wrote a thesis on packet switching from satellites before
he was 17 years old, before there were satellites and before Baran and
Davies invented packet switched networks?!? Something doesn't sound quite
right about that.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A50E0C.17405226092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
>
> My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
> switching from Satellites in the late 50's.
He was 14 when he wrote his thesis? On a technology that wasn't even a
pipe dream at the time? I call bullshit.
> .. and he is in total awe
> of the iPhone.
Of course he is- he doesn't understand technology.
> He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless
> throughout his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
I've got an uncle like that- he drools, too. Keeps talking about the 'good
old days' and calls me by my father's name.
| |
| Reality 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
|
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message news:4-- dndEup4rWaWfbnZ2dnUV
Z_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> So..... exactly WHAT background DO you have? Put up - or shut up!!
>
I concur..... Let's hear it, shall we.
Ditto on the "put up or shut up"...
Talk is cheap and so far, you ain't even made it to chump change...
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:54:40 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>But Chicago is a den of thieves, they have no respect in the modern tech
>world.
>
>WiMax will be open and free once it's fully implemented. You don't want
>to encourage firms using it "for pay". That wouldn't make sense.
>
>Sorry Scott, you are again lost on the "whole goal" of free wireless.
You keep switching between "free" and "pay" wifi. Why can't you make
up your mind, Oxtard?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:14:52 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>8021.xxa-z is as "common" as it gets for wireless...
>
>no more cell monopoly is the benefit.
>
>it sounds like you are still living in 2006... wake up scott!
You know what you get when you cross Oxtard with a pig? Nothing,
because there are things a pig just refuses to do.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:40:21 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>It has ALL to do with Motorola still believes the most THIEVES live in
>the Chicago area. Which I think most people would agree. So MOT is
>playing to their primal nature.
>
>Please try and keep up Scott, you fail at every turn when trying to
>reply to me. So step it up a notch or forgo replying.
>
>
>The Future, that's all that needs to be cited...
>
>
>In a "perfect" world, all phone calls to anywhere in the world would be
>ENTIRELY free. Can we at least agree on that?
>
>That makes PERFECT sense... correct?
>
>But "since" you are "slow", something called the Web was created on a
>NeXT machine about 17 years ago, it ushered in a whole new era of making
>things "free" wherever the "data" is. A Phone call is JUST a DATA
>STREAM... it's not an "Analog Transition" anymore.
>
>So it should be FREE.
>
>There is really no argument here. Just the "old school cell mafia"
>trying to prop up the dying Cell Companies and Apple trying to make
>things as cheap as possible so PEOPLE can call all around the world for
>free.
>
>Learn your Apple history Scott, it really sounds like you have no idea
>about what is about to happen. Apple CRUSHES obsolete industries, it's
>all they know how to do.
>
>There is NO REASON to pay ATT, Verizon, TMobile, etc, etc a PENNY in
>this new age.
>
>And Apple is going to be the first to do it on a large scale.
>
>-
Explain how all that "free" access is going to be accomplished without
someone paying for the infrastructure and backhauling, Oxtard. Did
your mammy have any children that LIVED, you pigXXXXer?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:30:00 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>"Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>
>
>What is there to "believe"? I just see all this close up. And you don't
>"yet"...
>
>So who is wrong? Someone living in the past and doesn't want to face the
>future like you? Or someone that seriously examines what is happening
>and points the way?
You aren't serious, nor do you have any clue how anything you spout
off about works, Oxtard. You are a true moron.
>My bet is on the later.
I'm sure you meant, latter, pigXXXXer.
Please check back when you graduate third grade.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:13:05 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
>sure, but I can always get a new phone once the 802.xxx protocols roll
>out. here is a rough list of what is about to happen:
>
>enjoy!
>
>----
>
>802.11 - The original 1 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz RF and IR standard
>(1999)
>802.11a - 54 Mbit/s, 5 GHz standard (1999, shipping products in 2001)
>802.11b - Enhancements to 802.11 to support 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s (1999)
>802.11c - Bridge operation procedures; included in the IEEE 802.1D
>standard (2001)
>802.11d - International (country-to-country) roaming extensions (2001)
>802.11e - Enhancements: QoS, including packet bursting (2005)
>802.11F - Inter-Access Point Protocol (2003) Withdrawn February 2006
>802.11g - 54 Mbit/s, 2.4 GHz standard (backwards compatible with b)
>(2003)
>802.11h - Spectrum Managed 802.11a (5 GHz) for European compatibility
>(2004)
>802.11i - Enhanced security (2004)
>802.11j - Extensions for Japan (2004)
>802.11k - Radio resource measurement enhancements (proposed - 2007?)
>802.11l - (reserved and will not be used)
>802.11m - Maintenance of the standard; odds and ends. (ongoing)
>802.11n - Higher throughput improvements using MIMO (multiple input,
>multiple output antennas) (pre-draft - 2007?)
>802.11o - (reserved and will not be used)
>802.11p - WAVE - Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment (such as
>ambulances and passenger cars) (working - 2008?)
>802.11q - (reserved and will not be used, can be confused with 802.1Q
>VLAN trunking)
>802.11r - Fast roaming Working "Task Group r" - 2007
>802.11s - ESS Mesh Networking (working - 2008?)
>802.11T - Wireless Performance Prediction (WPP) - test methods and
>metrics Recommendation (working - 2008?)
>802.11u - Interworking with non-802 networks (for example, cellular)
>(proposal evaluation - ?)
>802.11v - Wireless network management (early proposal stages - ?)
>802.11w - Protected Management Frames (early proposal stages - 2008?)
>802.11x - (reserved and will not be used)
>802.11y - 3650-3700 Operation in the U.S
>
>and what is up next.... bye bye cell companies!
>
And don't forget 802.11pf - Pig XXXXer protocol; so Oxtard can
communicate with his head up his XXX.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:50:39 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>Elmo, always the funny comedian!
>
>No, you don't need prior permission. If a signal is "open", it's
>completely free use. No wonder you get confused on this subject!
>
>You always want a base station to be "open" that way more people can
>benefit from the 802.11 revolution!
Only if you're not the one paying for the connection to the AP, you
pigXXXXer.
>Elmo, you're an old man with old ideas, please die already.
You are a pig XXXXer. Please pull out and let it be. I'm sure it's
XXXXXXX is sore by now.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:20:34 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>TOS violations mean NOTHING unless they are accepted by a Court that
>will listen to them. Thus they are "worthless".
Here goes pigXXXXer again. TOS are a contractual relationship between
a provider and a customer. Once you are TOSsed, you are tossed,
pigXXXXer. A court has nothing to say about it unless you can prove
the provider violated the TOS, pigXXXXer. Please try and keep up,
pigXXXXer.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:59:06 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>What? It's open right now and has been for about a year. Why would you
>lock a door?
So if/when I have to put a bullet in the XXXXXXX's head who comes
through it, I can say it was definitely forced entry, pigXXXXer.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:40:52 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Yes, there is overlap... kinda like Newspapers. Remember when people
>actually subscribed to them?
I'm sure you still do, and you aren't potty trained, yet, pigXXXXer.
>But then also shared them with their
>neighbors?
Just like your daddy did with your mommy, pigXXXXer?
>Same thing here... but Wireless.
Read the TOS, pigXXXXer.
>
>George, I know you like to live in the past, and there is NOTHING wrong
>with that. But I like to show the way to how things will be in 10-20
>years, not stare at my feet and say "today" will be like "tomorrow".
Hell, 20 years from now, you'll still be waiting for your pubes to
come in, pigXXXXer.
>Apple has now entered into a VERY non-competitive market (cell phones)
>so I have a obligation to let them known what is about to happen. I've
>studied this phenomena for years and while I feel for the loss of jobs
>the iPhone will create, I don't feel for the unproductive people that
>are locked into an old phone system.
Your sole obligation is to XXXX pigs. So, get back to work. I'm sure
your mommy's lonely.
>My 64 year old uncle worked for Bell Labs, his thesis was on packet
>switching from Satellites in the late 50's... and he is in total awe of
>the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless throughout
>his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
Is this the same uncle who paid you late night visits in bed,
pigXXXXer?
>People like Scott, Elmo don't have this background, I do... enough said.
No, they are decent people. They don't XXXX pigs. You do, pigXXXXer.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> Wow- what a prejudicial statement from someone touting to knwo it all.
> So, in addition to being an idiot you also judge people stereotypically.
> How juvenile- no surprise.
I didn't "pre-judge" Chicago, I've been there many times and know it for
a fact it is the Bagdad of the States. It's a war zone of criminals, "no
wonder" MOT went there to prop up the thieves. You never see Apple
there... wonder why? Do they honor honesty? Yep! That's the reason.
> Of course, you tried to deflect the fact that your beloved wifi just
> became woefully obsolete. You need to step it up a notch or forgo
> replying.
Where? WiFi is growing much faster than obsolete cell towers, nobody
disputes that.
>
> Translation- there are no facts to back up your claim. Idiot troll.
Talk to me in 2-3 years. I'm a skilled forecaster, you aren't.
> be
>
> No- in a "perfect" world. people would pay a fair and reasonable price
> for the service and products they use and consume while being paid a
> fair and reasonable wage for the work that they do. Your "perfect"
> world has been attempted and it failed miserably.
It wouldn't be "perfect" if you still had to pay... Think Scott, Think!
You are saying we should pay several "middlemen" for a stream of already
paid bits. Sorry... but that's the problem...
If I have an earthlink connection for $30, that's ALL I should pay for
TV, Cell, Phone, Slingbox, etc. NOBODY else should collect from this
"stream".
Currently "criminals" like Cell companies try and double dip, just like
what goes on in Chicago. And it's not going to last once EVERYONE knows
the problem.
Go ahead and prop up your mafia, but rest assured Apple will kill you
off since they have morals against paying more than what is needed.
> making
>
> Wrong- it created an era where the data was freely exchanged. However,
> the definiton of "freely" means 'without hinderance' and not having
> anything to do with cost.
And I FULLY understand "1" data provider should get some money. But why
do Cable companies, Cell companies, Phone companies try and "triple dip"
in this case? Why Scott? Why? None of them provide any extra services
except 1's and 0's. So why are there 2-4 companies all trying to
"collect", when only ONE company should provide the bits. Or FREE if you
want to share in the perfect Apple world of a "communal life".
> There has always been a price affixed to the storage and transmission of
> data in the real world. Data is just a commodity no different than oil,
> electricity. water, milk or produce.
Yes, and I AGREE, but why are all of them charging for the same stream?
I just want fairness and 2-3 of these companies to go out of business
because they are dishonest / inefficient in the new world that Apple has
created.
>
> You're the only one talking about phone calls- there's that digruntled
> ex-employee coming out in you again.
What? I work for no company. I work for the people, and you are angry
about it for some reason...
>
> As free as heat, water and food should be.
Yes, there should be "contributions", but not triple dipping...
>
> I know my Apple history. They had the largest market share in the
> consumer computer market and got caught up in their own pomposity. Now
> they are a second rate player in the market. Same with OS's. They
> created the first commercially viable digital music player, but will
> soon go the way of the Sony Walkman. It's all they know how to do.
Ah, you clearly don't know your history. Apple remains the primary
Computer vendor for intelligent people. It remains the primary music
vendor for the "masses". It now controls the upper end of all Cell
Phones. What next? is the only question.
> Name an "obsolete industry" they have crushed.
Mainframes. They died because of the Apple ][ and visicalc. Apple's
LaserWriter killed off 10,000+ printers, the iPod killed off many stereo
manufacturers, and now the iPhone is wiping out MOT, Nokia, Rimm, etc.
>
> No reason except convenience, functionality, features, coverage and ease
> of use
Coverage is only short term, Apple already blows away all the others in
terms of functionality, features. The iPhone is a modern marvel, it's
the Boeing 727 of Airplanes.
>
> Really? Then why are they aggressively exploring Wimax, which will
> require them to put chips in their devices that will connect to a not-
> free network?
What? WiMax is still years off, WiFi works great for now in 90% of your
daily life. Sure, when you are outside of a normal population, WiMax
would be nice, but it's not needed when you can drive a mile or so and
connect right up for free.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Your uncle wrote a thesis on packet switching from satellites before
> he was 17 years old, before there were satellites and before Baran and
> Davies invented packet switched networks?!? Something doesn't sound quite
> right about that.
yeah, he is one of those rare brilliant minds. He dealt with with
satellites in the Navy long before Baron / Davies were around to test
them in the commercial world. I'll check and see the exact dates since
his bound thesis is sitting in their library. I think it says 1957, so
he must be a few years older than 64. His wife / my aunt is 68, but
always thought there was 2-3 years difference between them.
Yeah, he got his electrical engineering degree in just 3 years, then
went directly to MIT for his Masters, then on to Murray Hill for a 8
year stint at Bell Labs. Then to GTE, then retired in 1984 or so.
-
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesmacs-959097.19035426092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:[color=darkred
]
>
>
> Coverage is only short term, Apple already blows away all the others in
> terms of functionality, features. The iPhone is a modern marvel, it's
> the Boeing 727 of Airplanes.
>
They started building the Boeing 727 in the early 1960's and stopped in
1984.
Now they build the 737, 747, 777, and soon the 787.
Talk about being out of date. lol
| |
| Kevin Weaver 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-959097.19035426092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't "pre-judge" Chicago, I've been there many times and know it for
> a fact it is the Bagdad of the States. It's a war zone of criminals, "no
> wonder" MOT went there to prop up the thieves. You never see Apple
> there... wonder why? Do they honor honesty? Yep! That's the reason.
Hmm. Why does apple have a store in Chicago ?
>
> Where? WiFi is growing much faster than obsolete cell towers, nobody
> disputes that.
>
>
> Talk to me in 2-3 years. I'm a skilled forecaster, you aren't.
>
>
> It wouldn't be "perfect" if you still had to pay... Think Scott, Think!
>
> You are saying we should pay several "middlemen" for a stream of already
> paid bits. Sorry... but that's the problem...
>
> If I have an earthlink connection for $30, that's ALL I should pay for
> TV, Cell, Phone, Slingbox, etc. NOBODY else should collect from this
> "stream".
>
> Currently "criminals" like Cell companies try and double dip, just like
> what goes on in Chicago. And it's not going to last once EVERYONE knows
> the problem.
>
> Go ahead and prop up your mafia, but rest assured Apple will kill you
> off since they have morals against paying more than what is needed.
>
>
> And I FULLY understand "1" data provider should get some money. But why
> do Cable companies, Cell companies, Phone companies try and "triple dip"
> in this case? Why Scott? Why? None of them provide any extra services
> except 1's and 0's. So why are there 2-4 companies all trying to
> "collect", when only ONE company should provide the bits. Or FREE if you
> want to share in the perfect Apple world of a "communal life".
>
>
> Yes, and I AGREE, but why are all of them charging for the same stream?
> I just want fairness and 2-3 of these companies to go out of business
> because they are dishonest / inefficient in the new world that Apple has
> created.
>
>
> What? I work for no company. I work for the people, and you are angry
> about it for some reason...
>
>
> Yes, there should be "contributions", but not triple dipping...
>
>
> Ah, you clearly don't know your history. Apple remains the primary
> Computer vendor for intelligent people. It remains the primary music
> vendor for the "masses". It now controls the upper end of all Cell
> Phones. What next? is the only question.
>
>
> Mainframes. They died because of the Apple ][ and visicalc. Apple's
> LaserWriter killed off 10,000+ printers, the iPod killed off many stereo
> manufacturers, and now the iPhone is wiping out MOT, Nokia, Rimm, etc.
>
>
> Coverage is only short term, Apple already blows away all the others in
> terms of functionality, features. The iPhone is a modern marvel, it's
> the Boeing 727 of Airplanes.
>
>
> What? WiMax is still years off, WiFi works great for now in 90% of your
> daily life. Sure, when you are outside of a normal population, WiMax
> would be nice, but it's not needed when you can drive a mile or so and
> connect right up for free.
>
> -
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| why do you hate quality products?
the iPhone is the future of all cell phones, we all know that now.
so why does that make you mad?
I can't spend the time to educated all of you, but you seem the most
ignorant about the future of the cell industry now that the iPhone has
taken the primary lead of all smartphones.
damn, you're going to be really pissed when the iPhone nano is released.
the cell industry simply isn't competitive, and Apple has proven that.
so it's only a downward spiral for all other handset makers, they just
don't have the skills to compete with a big computer firm that knows how
to design & build great products.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Screw the i(diot)Phone" <apple@sucks.XXX> wrote:
>
> Here goes pigXXXXer again. TOS are a contractual relationship between
> a provider and a customer. Once you are TOSsed, you are tossed,
> pigXXXXer. A court has nothing to say about it unless you can prove
> the provider violated the TOS, pigXXXXer. Please try and keep up,
> pigXXXXer.
but in the REAL world, nobody cares about a TOS, you need to understand
the FACTS, not hide behind a lawyer just to scare people. Nobody CARES
about ANY TOS. They don't matter!
You'll learn this in time young one.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesmacs-F4DE3E.19190626092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> yeah, he is one of those rare brilliant minds. He dealt with with
> satellites in the Navy long before Baron / Davies were around to test
> them in the commercial world. I'll check and see the exact dates since
> his bound thesis is sitting in their library. I think it says 1957, so
> he must be a few years older than 64. His wife / my aunt is 68, but
> always thought there was 2-3 years difference between them.
>
> Yeah, he got his electrical engineering degree in just 3 years, then
> went directly to MIT for his Masters, then on to Murray Hill for a 8
> year stint at Bell Labs. Then to GTE, then retired in 1984 or so.
>
> -
The Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik, the world's first artificial
satellite, on October 4, 1957.
Donald Davies came up with the name "Packet Switching" in 1965.
Lawrence Roberts and the ARPANET team took the name "packet switching"
itself from Davies's work after the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System
Principles .
Not quite logical. lol
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| "Screw the i(diot)Phone" <apple@sucks.XXX> wrote:
> Explain how all that "free" access is going to be accomplished without
> someone paying for the infrastructure and backhauling, Oxtard. Did
> your mammy have any children that LIVED, you pigXXXXer?
if everyone simply turns on a $20 wireless router, then pay their normal
$30 fee for broadband, we could wipe out entire industries!
that is the goal, it's just people like you are too stupid to understand
where all this is headed... OR have a connection to prop up the LIES to
make people pay more than they should.
i see through the inefficiency, you don't. it's that simple.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-959097.19035426092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't "pre-judge" Chicago,
Sure you did.
> I've been there many times and know it
> for a fact it is the Bagdad of the States.
Hardly, bigot.
> It's a war zone of
> criminals,
Some of the people I know with much more integrity than you come from
Chicago.
> "no wonder" MOT went there to prop up the thieves. You
> never see Apple there... wonder why?
No.
> Do they honor honesty? Yep!
> That's the reason.
A patently untrue statement if they all lie as you do.
>
>
> Where? WiFi is growing much faster than obsolete cell towers, nobody
> disputes that.
>
>
> Talk to me in 2-3 years. I'm a skilled forecaster, you aren't.
Actually, I am. My documented record shows many citations fo foresight
that have come true. I'm not a poorly educated guesser like you. You
are hardly skilled- you base all of your "forecasting" on emotion and
ignore the facts.
>
>
> It wouldn't be "perfect" if you still had to pay... Think Scott,
> Think!
>
> You are saying we should pay several "middlemen" for a stream of
> already paid bits. Sorry... but that's the problem...
>
> If I have an earthlink connection for $30, that's ALL I should pay for
> TV, Cell, Phone, Slingbox, etc. NOBODY else should collect from this
> "stream".
>
> Currently "criminals" like Cell companies try and double dip, just
> like what goes on in Chicago. And it's not going to last once EVERYONE
> knows the problem.
>
> Go ahead and prop up your mafia, but rest assured Apple will kill you
> off since they have morals against paying more than what is needed.
>
>
> And I FULLY understand "1" data provider should get some money. But
> why do Cable companies, Cell companies, Phone companies try and
> "triple dip" in this case? Why Scott? Why? None of them provide any
> extra services except 1's and 0's. So why are there 2-4 companies all
> trying to "collect", when only ONE company should provide the bits. Or
> FREE if you want to share in the perfect Apple world of a "communal
> life".
>
Kum-Bay-Yah, my Lord, Kum-Bay-Yah.
>
> Yes, and I AGREE, but why are all of them charging for the same
> stream? I just want fairness and 2-3 of these companies to go out of
> business because they are dishonest / inefficient in the new world
> that Apple has created.
>
>
> What? I work for no company. I work for the people, and you are angry
> about it for some reason...
I'd like to teach the world to sing....
>
>
> Yes, there should be "contributions", but not triple dipping...
>
>
> Ah, you clearly don't know your history. Apple remains the primary
> Computer vendor for intelligent people. It remains the primary music
> vendor for the "masses". It now controls the upper end of all Cell
> Phones. What next? is the only question.
>
>
> Mainframes. They died because of the Apple ][ and visicalc.
Umm- no.
> Apple's
> LaserWriter killed off 10,000+ printers,
And yet more non-Apple printers are sold then Apple printers.
> the iPod killed off many
> stereo manufacturers,
Name one.
> and now the iPhone is wiping out MOT, Nokia,
> Rimm, etc.
Really? My stock portfolio would say otherwise.
>
>
> Coverage is only short term, Apple already blows away all the others
> in terms of functionality, features. The iPhone is a modern marvel,
> it's the Boeing 727 of Airplanes.
That's a true statement- a 30 year old product that lacks many of the
comfort features and efficiencies of modernday airliners.
>
>
> What? WiMax is still years off,
Wimax is already deployed.
> WiFi works great for now in 90% of
> your daily life.
No it doesn't- I need more than the flinstone technology can offer.
> Sure, when you are outside of a normal population,
> WiMax would be nice, but it's not needed when you can drive a mile or
> so and connect right up for free.
Sorry- my time is worth too much to drive around to find a pipe. I'll
gladly pay an hour's salary for the convenience of not having to go on a
snark hunt.
>
> -
>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-26, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-80BBAD.15503926092007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Elmo, always the funny comedian!
>
> No, you don't need prior permission. If a signal is "open", it's
> completely free use. No wonder you get confused on this subject!
You've never lived in England, have you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6958429.stm
They take it very seriously over there. Even if the owner says
afterward that he doesn't mind, that doesn't change things. You will
still go to jail.
So, Oxford, I have a deal for you: if you can't refute this, then never
post to the Usenet again under any name whatsoever.
> Elmo, you're an old man with old ideas, please die already.
I see I'm getting under your skin. Good.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| In article <wsBKi.9$di7.3@fe093.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 26 Sep 2007 15:14:52 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>
>
> And how many letters of that alphabet does your phone support? Two,
> same as mine.
Tommy: I left a message.
Richard Hayden: Really, what number did you call?
Tommy: Two, four, niner, five, six, seven...
Richard Hayden: I can't hear you, you're trailing off and did I catch a
niner in there? Were you calling from a walkie-talkie?
Tommy: It was a cordless.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:22:35 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>"Screw the i(diot)Phone" <apple@sucks.XXX> wrote:
>
>
>but in the REAL world, nobody cares about a TOS, you need to understand
>the FACTS, not hide behind a lawyer just to scare people. Nobody CARES
>about ANY TOS. They don't matter!
>
>You'll learn this in time young one.
Hey pigXXXXer, pull your dick out of that hog for a minute to
understand this. When you sign up for internet service and you
violate their TOS, they can cut you off at their whim. No lawyers, no
courts, and no more pigXXXXers. Got it, pigXXXXer?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:45:38 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>"Screw the i(diot)Phone" <apple@sucks.XXX> wrote:
>
>
>if everyone simply turns on a $20 wireless router, then pay their normal
>$30 fee for broadband, we could wipe out entire industries!
And most will rightly secure their network so pigXXXXers like you
can't abuse their service. And providing an open AP is a violation of
most ISP's TOS, you stupid pigXXXXer. Why do you think the link you
posted to that stupid XXX company advised people to convert their
residential ISP connections to *COMMERCIAL* ones? That's right,
pigXXXXer, it's so they won't violate the residential TOS. And
COMMERCIAL broadband accounts are twice as much (or often more) than
residential onces, pigXXXXer. So what are you really saving,
pigXXXXer? You are paying twice as much (or more) for a service that
doesn't work 1/100th as well as the one you gave up. Feeling stupid
yet, pigXXXXer?
>that is the goal, it's just people like you are too stupid to understand
>where all this is headed... OR have a connection to prop up the LIES to
>make people pay more than they should.
So, instead of paying a cellular company, we'll be paying an ISP. And
ISPs are owned by a cellular company or jointly owned by another
telecommunications company. So all you are doing is taking money out
of one pocket and putting it in another, and not accomplishing a
goddamn thing in the process, pigXXXXer.
>i see through the inefficiency, you don't. it's that simple.
And I see you are still a pigXXXXer.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:29:40 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>You've never lived in England, have you?
If they have pigs there, pigXXXXer Oxtard will be there.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:03:54 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>I didn't "pre-judge" Chicago, I've been there many times and know it for
>a fact it is the Bagdad of the States.
How many pigs did you XXXX while you were there, pigXXXXer?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:03:54 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Talk to me in 2-3 years. I'm a skilled forecaster, you aren't.
So, how many pigs will you be XXXXing next week, pigXXXXer?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:03:54 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>If I have an earthlink connection for $30, that's ALL I should pay for
>TV, Cell, Phone, Slingbox, etc. NOBODY else should collect from this
>"stream".
Hey pigXXXXer, take a look at this:
http://www.earthlink.net/highspeed/pricing/?id=dsl
DSL Regular monthly rate (following introductory period)
$29.95-$39.95/month for 1.5Mbps service
$34.95-$44.95/month for 3.0Mbps service
$39.95 - $44.95/month for 6.0 Mbps service
CABLE
Monthly rate for 768Kbps product $29.95/mo.
Monthly rate for 5.0Mbps product $29.95/mo. for first 6 months
$41.95/mo thereafter
Monthly rate for 8.0Mbps product $72.95/month
Wi-Fi (This is the funny one)
Availability Service is available in select markets.
(I thought pigXXXXer said it was available everywhere!)
Introductory Rate Check for special offers in your area.
Regular Monthly Rate $19.95/month
Equipment Prices vary based on equipment needed.
Note: Service not available in all locations citywide (even if
pigXXXXer believes differently). Service cannot be guaranteed in all
areas; access in certain locations may be limited by buildings, trees,
and other obstructions (like pigXXXXer's big XXX) to our networks
Wi-Fi signal.
SATELLITE
$0 Down Plan Upfront Plan
Monthly Rate* $99.95 $69.95
Equipment N/A (regularly $749.95) $250.95
(regularly $749.95)
Standard Installation/
Activation Fee N/A
(regularly $249.95) $249.95
Total Upfront Costs $0.00 $499.95
Term Commitment 18 mo. 12 mo.
Early Term. Fee $399.99 $399.99
Then, look here, pigXXXXer:
http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/isa/
"3. THE SERVICE
Depending on the type of Service that you choose, the Service may
include internet access, software, hardware, email, webspace, wireless
data, wireless voice and other features. From time to time EarthLink
may impose reasonable rules and regulations regarding the use of the
Services."
and,
"Your Service may limit the amount of data that you can upload and/or
download each month ("bandwidth") or may be priced according to the
amount of bandwidth you use per month. Please see the description of
your particular Service by referring to the appropriate product page
at www.earthlink.net for more information. If during any month, you
exceed a monthly bandwidth limit associated with your Service,
EarthLink may, going forward, change your Service to one permitting
such bandwidth use (as provided for in the Service description) and
you agree to the standard fees EarthLink charges for such Service.
EarthLink will provide you with notice of any such change to your
Service."
And in the case of DSL service:
http://www.earthlink.net/about/policies/dslhomephone/
"The Service shall be used in a fixed location in qualifying areas of
the United States and is for residential purposes only. This is not a
business service. You shall not resell or transfer the Service or the
Equipment to another party without our prior written consent.
EarthLink reserves the right to immediately terminate or modify your
Service if we determine, in our sole and absolute discretion, that
your use of the Service or the Equipment is, or at any time was,
inconsistent with normal fixed residential usage patterns or for any
other reason."
So there you have it, pigXXXXer. Your prices are wrong. Your
interpretation of their policies are wrong. Go ahead and use
Earthlink's service to provide open access to every Tom's Hairy Dick
you blow and see if they don't cut you off, pigXXXXer. Just because
you wish it to be different, pigXXXXer, doesn't make it so, pigXXXXer.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:03:54 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>Go ahead and prop up your mafia, but rest assured Apple will kill you
>off since they have morals against paying more than what is needed.
I guess that's why they raped the first i(diot)Phone victims for
higher prices than they charge now, right, pigXXXXer?
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:03:54 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>And I FULLY understand "1" data provider should get some money. But why
>do Cable companies, Cell companies, Phone companies try and "triple dip"
>in this case? Why Scott? Why? None of them provide any extra services
>except 1's and 0's. So why are there 2-4 companies all trying to
>"collect", when only ONE company should provide the bits. Or FREE if you
>want to share in the perfect Apple world of a "communal life".
So following pigXXXXer's logic (or lack thereof), once I fill my car
up with gas, since gasoline is the epitome of a fungible product, then
I should be able to stop in at any gas station in the future and fill
up for free.
Stupid pigXXXXer.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-27, 3:33 pm |
| At 26 Sep 2007 15:54:40 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> WiMax will be open and free once it's fully implemented. You don't
want
> to encourage firms using it "for pay". That wouldn't make sense.
No, Sprint and Clearwire shouldn't need to recoup the billions of
dollars they're spending to build it out. I suspect that they're
building the WiMax network from scratch because of a deep sense of
public good.
WiMax isn't a ragtag assortment of $30 routers connected to various
ISPs. It's far more closely related to cellular (*gasp*) than it is
to WiFi.
> Sorry Scott, you are again lost on the "whole goal" of free wireless.
Then explain to us how a "free" WiMax network can be built, given the
immense cost to deploy?
Could a Google (or even an Apple) do it? Probably, but why? What's
in it for them that would allow the recouping of deployment costs?
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-27, 3:33 pm |
| At 26 Sep 2007 17:40:52 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> My 64 year old uncle... ...is in total awe of
> the iPhone. He KNOWS it runs ATT Unix, he knows it's wireless
throughout
> his mansion, he knows about VoIP...... and just smiles...
I suspect a lot of people "just smile" when you open your mouth.
That same smile you give the grocery bagger with Down's Syndrome at
the local supermarket...
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Ness Net 2007-09-27, 3:33 pm |
|
"Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote in message
news:NZCKi.5150$tJ4.3051@trnddc05...
>
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
> news:4-- dndEup4rWaWfbnZ2dnUV
Z_v6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> I concur..... Let's hear it, shall we.
>
> Ditto on the "put up or shut up"...
> Talk is cheap and so far, you ain't even made it to chump change...
>
The silence speaks VOLUMES, doesn't it??
Oxford is 100% BS, 0% substance
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-27, 10:33 pm |
| At 26 Sep 2007 20:17:23 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> damn, you're going to be really pissed when the iPhone nano is
released.
I will if it takes them three generations to get it right like it did
with the iPod Nano. (Any good reason gens 1&2 couldn't play videos
like EVERY cheap Chinese knockoff that sold for 1/2 the price? Any
good reason, that is, OTHER THAN "so as to not cannibalise sales from
the higher priced iPod Video?")
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-09-27, 10:33 pm |
| In article <IuTKi.481$9n4.248@fe119.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 26 Sep 2007 17:40:52 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
> throughout
>
> I suspect a lot of people "just smile" when you open your mouth.
> That same smile you give the grocery bagger with Down's Syndrome at
> the local supermarket...
ummmm....dude....Oxford IS the grocery bagger...
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-28, 4:33 am |
| "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> The silence speaks VOLUMES, doesn't it??
sshhhhh... silence is golden.
> Oxford is 100% BS, 0% substance
nah, you're just upset since you can't provide facts at the level i do.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-28, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:17:23 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>why do you hate quality products?
Why do you like XXXXing pigs, pigXXXXer?
>the iPhone is the future of all cell phones, we all know that now.
The i(diot)Phone is a passing fad, much like mood rings and the pet
rock, pigXXXXer.
>so why does that make you mad?
It doesn't make me mad, pigXXXXer. I just hate lying pig XXXXers like
you, pigXXXXer.
>I can't spend the time to educated all of you, but you seem the most
>ignorant about the future of the cell industry now that the iPhone has
>taken the primary lead of all smartphones.
You must have an education in order to educate someone else,
pigXXXXer. The only thing you could teach is the number of ways to
XXXX a pig, pigXXXXer. BTW, you improperly used the past tense of
"educate" above, pigXXXXer. Sit down, sonny, the lesson is just
beginning.
>damn, you're going to be really pissed when the iPhone nano is released.
Not really, it won't affect me one way or the other, pigXXXXer.
>the cell industry simply isn't competitive, and Apple has proven that.
The cell industry is quite competitive. The number of manufacturers
and carriers in the market attest to that fact, pigXXXXer.
>so it's only a downward spiral for all other handset makers, they just
>don't have the skills to compete with a big computer firm that knows how
>to design & build great products.
Nah, they'll keep making handsets what work fine for normal people,
not the nerdy, "my dick is bigger than your dick" types who just had
to have an i(diot)Phone the first week it was out. It's just a toy
for childish minds, pigXXXXer.
| |
| Ness_net 2007-09-28, 4:33 am |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-013F1A.21585027092007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...
>
> nah, you're just upset since you can't provide facts at the level i do.
#1 - not "upset" at all... mildly entertained by the amount of crap you spew.
It's amazing just what you attempt (poorly BTW) to pass off as "fact".
When, it actually is the exact opposite - (complete fantasy)
Nutty fanboy fiction, nothing more.
#2. Keep deluding yourself - you ain't foolin' anyone - but yourself
You have zero credibility
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-28, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:58:50 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:
>
>nah, you're just upset since you can't provide facts at the level i do.
I have yet to see a fact from you, pigXXXXer.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-28, 7:33 am |
| "Screw the i(diot)Phone" <apple@sucks.XXX> wrote:
> I have yet to see a fact from you, pigXXXXer.
poor little iphone hater. always angry at a better product coming into
the market that is upsetting many a cell phone handset maker.
grow up, there is nothing you can do about the massive success of the
iphone. and that's a fact, so learn a little about this great product,
then you might not be so angry.
watch this tour, then you'll see what all the excitement is about.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/getting...guidedtour.html
| |
|
| In article <IuTKi.481$9n4.248@fe119.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 26 Sep 2007 17:40:52 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
> throughout
>
> I suspect a lot of people "just smile" when you open your mouth.
> That same smile you give the grocery bagger with Down's Syndrome at
> the local supermarket...
Did you really need to go there?
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| I can't believe I just sat and read through this entire thread, what a
waste of time, and I actually feel a little bit dumber now.
To say that the iphone is revolutionary because it has wifi is just
ridiculous. There have been countless WINDOWS smartphones with wifi.
Not to mention, they can do VOIP calls :O
To say that the iphone is gonna even make a ripple in any cellular
providers business model is also ridiculous. So far apple has sold
one million iphones, there are 190 million cellular subscribers in the
united states. Considering Alot of those sales were already ATT
customers, I dont think any large cell carrier like VZW is scared of
the iphone. I'll even say right here that I love the iphone, its
sharp looking, great interface, and all the features I could ever
want, but none of this matters, you know why? Because VZW has already
proven that its the network, not the phone, that matters. VZW
continues to take a dump on every handset in their lineup with that
disgusting interface, and countless missing features. Yet people
still pay them every month for their rock solid voice network, and
large EVDO coverage.
Most of all, to think that wifi is an efficient way to handle your
telephone calls, rather than over a cellular network is the craziest
thing I have ever heard. Even when it comes to data, wifi may have
higher speeds over 3g, but coverage is so spotty you could never
consider it to be reliable unless you are stationary. I have a theory
on why the iphone doesnt have 3g. I actually think ATT may have
suggested not to include it. Considering its an always on data
connection, and all iphone plans have unlimited data, theres not
enough revenue per customer to warrant the iphones clogging their high-
speed network.
Apple is by no means in the cell phone game to make it free for end
users, they couldn't care less. The only company I see that has a
shot of putting free cell phones in users hands is Google. Don't get
me wrong either, I know Google doesn't care if I get to talk on a cell
for free either, but they have a clear motive for doing what they are
doing, ad revenue. I'll bet that Google will generate more ad revenue
per user, per month than any major cell provider profits each month.
Not to mention there are about 2.5 billion cell phones worldwide which
exceeds the number of TV's and PC's combined. When advertising is
your game, I'd say cell phones would be a hell of a market to give
your all in.
Anyways, I can't believe I've actually wasted more time by replying to
this thread. Oxford you are by all means the biggest fanboy I have
ever seen. Its a good thing, for you, that Al Gore, Steve Jobs, Your
Uncle, Superman, Santa Claus, and Next, all came together, joined
forces, and invented the internet for you to run your mouth on.
Because its obvious you would not be able to carry on a conversation
with any real person, in real life, without them making you feel
stupid, and making you cry.
| |
|
| Oh yeah, forgot to mention.... THIS JUST IN,,,, ITUNES UPDATE IS
BRICKING UNLOCKED IPHONES...
Oxford, be sure to pass that headline around your free love commune.
| |
|
| In article <1191000330.267072.202200@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
digi <jhardee@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I have a theory
> on why the iphone doesnt have 3g. I actually think ATT may have
> suggested not to include it.
I'm inclined to take Jobs at his word that it's mostly a battery life
issue.
Between the large, extremely bright screen, the high-end processor and
fairly substantial amount of RAM (128 MB), the WiFi, and the fact that a
standard use case for the device might involve playing a dozen hours of
music or watching a movie or two between charges as well as handling
calls, the iPhone is already more power-hungry than practically any
other handset I can think of.
Plus is has a smaller form factor than most competing smart phones (it's
half the thickness of a Treo, for instance), which means it probably has
a smaller battery as well.
My guess is Apple will move off of EDGE when something that uses less
power than current 3G chipsets comes along.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
| |
| Oxford 2007-10-10, 3:33 pm |
| Just thought this was funny... now we are getting into "free" heated
sidewalks WITH free "wifi"...
Chuckle, chuckle... this is my observation on steroids...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...BLOG01/71010029
And as you probably know BT has proposed making WiFi free across the
country...
http://www.btopenzone.com/
The US is up next to do this.
Cell Companies will CRUMBLE once this is done!
Trust me!
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-10, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesmacs-E7C70D.14281510102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> And as you probably know BT has proposed making WiFi free across the
> country...
>
> http://www.btopenzone.com/
>
> The US is up next to do this.
Wait a minute--I thought there already was free WiFi everywhere I went.
'Cuz that's the claim you've already made.
Pwned. Now shut up and go the XXXX away.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-10, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
E7C70D.14281510102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> Just thought this was funny... now we are getting into "free" heated
> sidewalks WITH free "wifi"...
>
Yep- lined with lollipop trees and shrubs that have $50 bills for leaves.
<yawn>
|
|
|
|
|