|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > December 2007 > Hey Oxford - more reality
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 |
Hey Oxford - more reality
|
|
| Ness Net 2007-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will.
It looks like it's going backwards....
If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to
happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...aily
news
As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
network that they signed in July.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...ect.html?page=2
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-09, 10:33 pm |
| "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> Oxford has gone on and on about WiFi ruling the world
> and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will.
>
> It looks like it's going backwards....
> If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to
> happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
>
> The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
> Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
> still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
> according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...ilicon-valley-s
> talls.html? netht=110907dailynew
s1&& nladname=110907daily
news
>
> As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
>
> Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
> agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
> network that they signed in July.
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/20...ill-joint-wimax
> -project.html?page=2
go educate yourself:
http://www.fon.com/en/
-
| |
|
|
| Ness Net 2007-11-12, 4:33 am |
|
"Oxford" < colalovesosx@verysma
rt.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-34FFBB.17490309112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> go educate yourself:
>
> http://www.fon.com/en/
>
> -
Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
also.
And having a good laugh - at your expense.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-12, 4:33 am |
| "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
> No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
> also.
ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
http://digg.com/apple/ Steve_Jobs_k...r />
share_WiFi
someday, you'll catch up with me...
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-12, 10:33 am |
| Ness Net wrote:
>
> "Oxford" < colalovesosx@verysma
rt.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesosx-34FFBB.17490309112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really
> are.
> No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
> also.
>
> And having a good laugh - at your expense.
>
I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very well?
Amdy
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-12, 3:33 pm |
| At 12 Nov 2007 01:41:20 -0700 Oxford wrote:
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing.
Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants
cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine
why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are
powered by Peanut Butter...
> That
> speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/ Steve_Jobs_k...r />
share_WiFi
> someday, you'll catch up with me...
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the
same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
is the producers incentive to produce?
FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me
FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually
spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi
from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of
net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-12, 3:33 pm |
| At 12 Nov 2007 15:36:06 +0000 nospamatall wrote:
> I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
> alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very
well?
>
> Amdy
How is cellular a "rip-off?" In cellulars' neaely thirty years we've
seen rates fall from $1/minute to 5-cents or less, as well as the effect
competitive pressure from cellular has had on landline rates- lower
rates, unlimited long distance plans, packages that include calling
features like Caller-ID, voicemail, etc.
Cellular is cheaper than ever, plus has done more to control landline
rates than VoIP ever has.
"Rip-off?" Sorry, I don't see it.
The free market is an amazing thing- if an effective, profitable, and
cheaper alternative to cellular was currently possible, a large tech
company unable to break into cellular would've launched it already.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-12, 3:33 pm |
| In article <fha8hn$ksd$2@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
>
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
Exactly correct! Well put, also!
> Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
free, everyone is paying for it.
Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's
use.
Bob Campbell
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:07:25 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
And there is a security problem with it, too. I wonder whose door
they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn
through *your* open AP?
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 9dhhj39c4fql5feuiamq
g95kmofrvvqj6t@4ax.com>,
The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:07:25 -0700, Todd Allcock
> < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> And there is a security problem with it, too. I wonder whose door
> they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn
> through *your* open AP?
Yep. Oxtard appears to be re-living the Woodstock Dream, where
everything is "free" - as long as it's paid for by Someone Else.
Bob Campbell
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
Socialism has nothing to do with it.
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article <fha8hn$ksd$2@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> Exactly correct! Well put, also!
>
>
> Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
Socialism would be the state owning all of it and running it badly so it
was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their
own high-bandwidth access. Socialism has as much to do with caring and
sharing in the real world as Christianity has to do with love and tolerance.
Andy
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article <fham4j$ti9$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? Do we have the
Ministry Of Open Networks monitoring my AP?
What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an
iBrick?
This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. When
Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
go away.
Bob Campbell
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article <fhamav$ufk$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>
> Socialism would be the state owning all of it and running it badly so it
> was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their
> own high-bandwidth access.
Which is exactly how this silly scheme would end up. Socialism was
supposed to be "Everyone is equal and everyone will be taken care of".
But of course, some people are more equal than others.
If you want something, you work hard so you can pay for it. Don't
expect your neighbors to give it to you.
Bob Campbell
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
>You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| At 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000 nospamatall wrote:
If[color=darkred]
before[color=darkred
]
>
> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
In the "FON" model, yes. However, my dear Oxfiord, you've only been
flogging FON recently. Prior to that you were pushing free open access.
what[color=darkred]
>
> Socialism has nothing to do with it.
You're right- it's more like good old Amway-style multi-level-marketing.
You get "paid" with free access in return for buying the $49 "sales kit"
and conning everyone you know into doing the same.
If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
profit opportunity"!
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-12, 10:33 pm |
| At 12 Nov 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Bob Campbell wrote:
>
> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
(including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
cancel my cell service!
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become
an
> iBrick?
Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable.
True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
$40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
> When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
"floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
oxygen...
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 4:33 am |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
But if Apple does it, you'll have 1000's within a few months, plus the
1000's of open wifi spots already in Denver.
> an
>
> Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
> available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
no, it comes with a range extender for that $40, so you'd have 300 feet
or so of coverage. 1000's of feet with other antennas.
>
> True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
> $40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
> ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
ah, they have a hell of a lot more than 1000's of these, FON is spanish
and they are mainly in Europe. but if Apple latches on, people like
Dell, Linksys, Netgear and HP will quickly copy them and make the party
even wider.
their partner list is rather incredible, so something BIG is about to
happen. Sequoia Capital alone says it all...
[url]http://www.fon.com/en/info/ ourInvestorPartners[
/url]
>
> Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
> "floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
> I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
> oxygen...
3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
States, if not there will be a better solution that Apple will be the
first to use on a wide scale. Just like they were the first to use
802.11 on a mass scale.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 4:33 am |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
> could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
> All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
> course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
> the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
> profit opportunity"!
you can already do that on the Mac... without FON...
http://www.linspot.com/
FON just sells a ready made kit with extender for $40, seems fair enough.
| |
|
| In article
<colalovesosx-34FFBB.17490309112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@verysma
rt.com> wrote:
> go educate yourself:
>
> http://www.fon.com/en/
Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
in other locations.
Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
| |
|
| In article
<colalovesosx-E766EC.01412012112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
> speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/ Steve_Jobs_k...r />
share_WiFi
>
> someday, you'll catch up with me...
Oxford, you have invented and made broad claims.
No one has to catch up -- it's all imagination.
There is no reality there.
Now, instead of making wild broad claims about what you GUESS might
happen, someday, you _could have been_ discussing the directions
companies were taking, the ways technology could make it happen, the
ways businesses were changing their plans to work within a 'new
paradigm.'
But normally, you just make vast insipid statements.
No, there's nothing to 'catch up' to.
Most people have to slow down ad back up just to see if you really made
the latest silly claim.
| |
|
| In article <bob-4737FB.14285812112007@news.supernews.com>, Bob Campbell
<bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
>
> Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's
> use.
Not me. The problem I have with it isn't that I would be sharing.
(Seriously, why would anyone object to that?)
The problem I see with it is that it doesn't do ANY of the 'free' part.
EVERYONE IS PAYING!
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 7:33 am |
| In article
<colalovesosx-A0952C.21344712112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
> them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
> States,
There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no
one is using it now!
Bob Campbell
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-11-13, 7:33 am |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
> It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> No one has to catch up -- it's all imagination.
> There is no reality there.
yes, this is only in my imagination...
http://www.fon.com/en/info/whatsFon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON
catch a clue mitch... this is very much a real idea, and 10,000's of
free spots exist at this very moment...
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
> pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
no, all you do is buy a router with a range extender for $40, then you
get FREE access to all other people doing the same. It's a one time cost.
> Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
> or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
no, you aren't understanding the concept. it's FREE to use any of the
others if you have a fon router yourself. so for $40 bucks "one time",
you have access to all other fon routers worldwide.
it's the shape of things to come, especially if Apple does it on a much
larger scale.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
>
> So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
for what? there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no
> one is using it now!
well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
from the pc to the mp3 player, now the multi-touch cell phone, apple led
the way that became the standard.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| In article
<colalovesosx-2DC651.08210713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
> tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
Bob Campbell
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article <fham4j$ti9$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced? Do we have the
> Ministry Of Open Networks monitoring my AP?
>
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an
> iBrick?
If you're really interested why don't you find out instead of displaying
your ignorance here?
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
>
> Bob Campbell
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-13, 10:33 am |
| The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:03:46 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
> you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
>
Are you really that thick? If you're away from home you can't access
your router over wi-fi.
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 12 Nov 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Bob Campbell wrote:
>
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
>
I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
systems and nothing else.
Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:25:45 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>
>Are you really that thick? If you're away from home you can't access
>your router over wi-fi.
Todd's scenario, to which you replied, mentioned nothing about being
away from home, you dolt.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| In article <fhcj48$cf6$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>
> If you're really interested why don't you find out instead of displaying
> your ignorance here?
IOW you have no answer. OK.
Bob Campbell
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
> thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
> a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
>
> for what?
For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
> there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
them it wasn't you.
Not worth the hassle, IMO.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 12:33 pm |
| nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
> I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
> numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
> bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
> past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
"moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that so it's going
to be fun to watch as Apple takes over the cell market. They are just
ONE download away from releasing a VoIP product (iChat) on all existing
and future iPhones. Yes, steve is waiting for the right moment to kill
off the cell phone industry, we ALL know that... but his extreme
interest in FON spells everything out very clearly.
The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost /
High Quality products... something they've never had to experience. AT&T
is just a pawn at this point in the game.
> Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
> their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
> systems and nothing else.
Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
any value to the market place. Their technology is obsolete... The
public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
Well, it's as about as unlikely as a kid named Steve Wozniak invents a
powerful, extremely low cost computer and creates massive social change
on the order of the Light Bulb.
FON is quite similar if you think about it... a one time $40 cost to
share VoIP to 250 more people that ALSO have massive bandwidth "tied up"
since nobody knows it's possible to break the rules and win.
The FON concept is interesting and something can be done on a mass scale
if / when Apple plays their cards.
-
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:25:45 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> Todd's scenario, to which you replied, mentioned nothing about being
> away from home, you dolt.
>
We are talking about FON, it's patently obvious that's what it is for.
| |
| nospamatall 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article <fhcj48$cf6$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> IOW you have no answer. OK.
IOW find out for yourself or ask politely not antagonistically
bye
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:34:22 +0000, nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie>
wrote:
>The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
>We are talking about FON, it's patently obvious that's what it is for.
The only thing patently obvious is your stupidity.
| |
| Maverick 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article
> <colalovesosx-2DC651.08210713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
> with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
>
In this case Apple had no real choice. IBM didn't want to give them
their flagship chip, the G6. Apples server line was in direct
competition with IBMs server line.
But you are correct in that Apple didn't set any tech trends.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesosx-2E93D2.10330613112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
>
> BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
> keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that
Yeah. Apple is known for their low prices, aren't they!
Bob Campbell
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-11-13, Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
Moore's law concerns computer hardware. You can get the cellular
*hardware* for free or at low cost with a new contract or contract
extension. Then there's the cost of building out and maintaining the
network, billing, customer service, etc. Which is not to say that cell
contracts couldn't be cheaper, but $4 or $5 per month? I doubt it.
> BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
Bahahahaha. That's funny. Do you understand the meaning of the term "price
fixing"?
> The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost
Bullshit. Apple products have always brought a premium price compared to
the rest of the market, from the first 128K Mac to today's iPhones.
> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
> matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
> should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
> any value to the market place.
If that's the way you feel, don't pay for a cell phone.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| In article <slrnfjjvvm.ljm.sjsobol@amethyst.justthe.net>,
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Bullshit. Apple products have always brought a premium price compared to
> the rest of the market, from the first 128K Mac to today's iPhones.
Actually it goes back further than that. Apple 2s were overpriced also.
Bob Campbell
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 3:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants
> cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine
> why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are
> powered by Peanut Butter...
ah, but he still lives in a modest house in palo alto, doesn't drive
flashy cars or wear fancy clothes. and makes $1 a year so he can get
health insurance for his kids and wife. he's an honest hippy and has
stayed true to that ideal all this time.
>
>
> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
yes, and steve has stayed true to that vision. especially the
brotherhood of man. he's never been out for just a "buck"... he lives to
build a better world, or as often been said, "put a dent in the
universe".
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
yes, but that's where the "payback" mechanism kicks in. if you are
greedy and don't want to share... you can CHARGE people for your unused
bandwidth. so it's not an either / or proposition... it's if you want to
join great, free wireless for you, if you want to pay... then great, i
make a buck or two on your ignorance.
> FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me
> FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually
> spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi
> from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of
> net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions...
well, if FON makes $10-$15 off me that's fine... it's not like they are
inflating the price to be unreasonable. Or charging me MONTH to MONTH
like the old school Cell or Cable / DSL companies are trying to do.
It's a fair sum game...
-
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| At 13 Nov 2007 16:33:26 +0000 nospamatall wrote:
> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
As the "idiot shill" you're referring to, set me straight and tell me how
cell companies are "parasites?" For $0.05-0.10/minute I can take a phone
virtually anywhere in the country and call anyone in the country. Skype
wants $0.02/minute to do that with SOMEONE ELSE'S infrastructure!
Now if you're b*tching about the high internet rates or restrictive TOSes
that's another matter, but the answer there is to shop around. T-Mobile,
my provider, offers unlimited data for $20/month, without a restrictive
TOS, (but slow 2G data.)
As I said earlier, the free market works- if a company could do it better
and cheape , THEY WOULD. Imagine how EASY it would be to steal away the
millions of unsatisfied cellular customers that think just like you, just
like DBS satellite companies did a decade ago and gobbled up unhappy
cable customers.
The fact is, that cellular is a cutthroat low-margin business. Perhaps
you should read a few finacial statements or industry trade papers before
you cry "idiot shill," my naive friend.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| At 13 Nov 2007 07:50:29 -0700 Oxford wrote:
>
> catch a clue mitch... this is very much a real idea, and 10,000's of
> free spots exist at this very moment...
Wow. 10,000 ultra low range hotspots across the entire planet. We have 9
here in Denver. I'm surprised the Cellcos haven't thrown in the towel
already.
(Oh, Oxford will say, but in the future...) If every WiFi AP in the
country went completely unsecured it still wouldn't offer 1% of the
coverage that cellular offers.
I occasionally use Navizon's WiFi/cellular mapping project software
(www.navizon.com) where people with Wi-Fi and GPS enabled phones (or
laptops) run a software program that automatically logs and uploads the
location of every AP
(secure or unsecure) and cell tower they drive in range of so people with
non-GPS WiFi phones can use that data as a substitute for a satellite-
based GPS.
There are plenty of areas I drive through that are not in range of a
single AP for miles. (In those areas it uses cell towers to roughly
approximate location, but it's nowhere near as accurate as WiFi
triangulation because of the fewer data points.)
They've even built a version of their software for hacked iPhones, but
unlike other versions for other phones, it can't pass the location data
to Google Maps, unfortunately, but you can use their (clunkier)
map/directions software to simulate a "real" nav program on the iPhone.
Once you setup an account, you can go to their website and select an area
and see a Google Earth map showing every AP and cell tower any user has
ever logged using Navizon.
What's my point? Simply this: select any well trafficed suburban area
that has Navizon data recorded, and you'll EASILY see the holes in
coverage. As a fun "Oxford-bashing bonus", compare the vast number of
RED pushpins (secured APs) to green (unsecured) and see all the "free
wifi" he tells us is already out there.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
lower in cellular rates than you see now.
> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
> Their technology is obsolete... The
> public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.
| |
|
| In article <_8r_i.9427$ww2.1584@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
> lower in cellular rates than you see now.
>
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
>
>
> No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.
Cell phones are now primarily funded by teens text messaging.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
> lower in cellular rates than you see now.
but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is skimming
off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per month
are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and shows how
uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy market, no
company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.
They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
upgrading the towers.
>
> No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.
No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
"major" expense after the towers are up.
The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
well run market.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> Yeah. Apple is known for their low prices, aren't they!
Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor. They charge a fair
price, then you use the product for 2-4 years and resell it for a
massive sum comparatively to PCs.
So if you understand the concept of "Value", Macs are the cheapest PCs
you can buy today.
Real Macs go for 30-40% more upon resell compared to Mac Clones.
Learn how markets work Bob, then you won't ask such silly questions.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesosx-160CBD.18493013112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
Mac tower?
Bob Campbell
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in
news:colalovesosx-706B5C.18441713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> front.
>
Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
Damn, you're stupid.
| |
| Ness Net 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-2483E4.08183513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> for what? there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Holy shit - you REALLY are THAT stupid!
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...r/popUp_3g.html
Alabama Birmingham Arkansas Fayetteville, Little Rock Arizona Chandler,
Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson
California Anaheim, Arden-Arcade, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Chula
Vista, Concord, Daly City, East Los Angeles, Escondido, Fairfield, Fremont,
Fresno, Glendale, Hayward, Irvine, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Modesto,
Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Oxnard, Pasadena, Pomona, Richmond,
Roseville, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, Santa
Clara, Stockton, Sunnyvale, Vallejo Colorado Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London Delaware Wilmington
District of Columbia Washington, DC Florida Cape Canaveral, Clearwater,
Coral Springs, Daytona Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Gainesville,
Hialeah, Hollywood, Jacksonville, Lakeland, Miami, Miramar, Orlando,
Pembroke Pines, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee, Tampa, The Keys, West Palm
Beach Georgia Athens, Atlanta Hawaii Honolulu Idaho Boise Illinois
Bloomington, Chicago, Elgin, Joliet, Springfield Indiana Gary, Indianapolis
Kansas Kansas City, Olathe, Overland Park Kentucky Lexington, Louisville
Louisiana Baton Rouge, Metairie, New Orleans Maryland Baltimore
Massachusetts Boston, Cambridge, Lowell, Springfield, Worcester Michigan
Clinton, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Livonia, Sterling Heights, Warren
Minnesota Minneapolis, Rochester Missouri Columbia, Independence, Jefferson
City, Kansas City, St. Louis Nevada Carson City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North
Las Vegas, Paradise, Reno, Spring Valley, Sunrise Manor New Jersey Atlantic
City, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Long Branch, Newark, New Brunswick, Ocean
County, Trenton New Mexico Albuquerque New York Hamptons, New York North
Carolina Cary, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, Winston-Salem Ohio
Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo Oklahoma Tulsa Oregon
Portland Pennsylvania Allentown, Harrisburg, Northeast-Scranton,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh Puerto Rico Bayamon, Carolina, San Juan Rhode
Island Providence South Carloina Columbia Tennessee Knoxville, Memphis,
Nashville Texas Arlington, Austin, Beaumont, Carrollton, Corpus Christi,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Houston, Irving, McAllen,
Mesquite, Pasadena, Plano, Richardson, San Antonio, Victoria Utah Provo,
Salt Lake City, West Valley Virginia Alexandria, Arlington Washington
Bellevue, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver Wisconsin Milwaukee
Then , remember EVDO is also 3G - even though it's CDMA and not totally
germane to the issue..
But, you claim "there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to
think about it.
3G is only in about 35 cities"
Since EVDO on both VZW and Sprint is nationwide, this further proves just
how out of
touch with reality you are.
Oxford = 100% bullshit - always.
| |
|
| Ness Net wrote:
>
> "Oxford" < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesosx-2483E4.08183513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
>
> Holy shit - you REALLY are THAT stupid!
>
> http://www.wireless.att.com/coverag...r/popUp_3g.html
>
> Alabama Birmingham Arkansas Fayetteville, Little Rock Arizona Chandler,
> Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson
> California Anaheim, Arden-Arcade, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Chula
> Vista, Concord, Daly City, East Los Angeles, Escondido, Fairfield,
> Fremont, Fresno, Glendale, Hayward, Irvine, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
> Modesto, Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Oxnard, Pasadena, Pomona,
> Richmond, Roseville, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose,
> Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Stockton, Sunnyvale, Vallejo Colorado Colorado
> Springs, Denver Connecticut Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London
> Delaware Wilmington District of Columbia Washington, DC Florida Cape
> Canaveral, Clearwater, Coral Springs, Daytona Beach, Ft. Lauderdale,
> Fort Pierce, Gainesville, Hialeah, Hollywood, Jacksonville, Lakeland,
> Miami, Miramar, Orlando, Pembroke Pines, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee,
> Tampa, The Keys, West Palm Beach Georgia Athens, Atlanta Hawaii Honolulu
> Idaho Boise Illinois Bloomington, Chicago, Elgin, Joliet, Springfield
> Indiana Gary, Indianapolis Kansas Kansas City, Olathe, Overland Park
> Kentucky Lexington, Louisville Louisiana Baton Rouge, Metairie, New
> Orleans Maryland Baltimore Massachusetts Boston, Cambridge, Lowell,
> Springfield, Worcester Michigan Clinton, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids,
> Livonia, Sterling Heights, Warren Minnesota Minneapolis, Rochester
> Missouri Columbia, Independence, Jefferson City, Kansas City, St. Louis
> Nevada Carson City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Paradise,
> Reno, Spring Valley, Sunrise Manor New Jersey Atlantic City, Elizabeth,
> Jersey City, Long Branch, Newark, New Brunswick, Ocean County, Trenton
> New Mexico Albuquerque New York Hamptons, New York North Carolina Cary,
> Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, Winston-Salem Ohio Akron,
> Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo Oklahoma Tulsa Oregon
> Portland Pennsylvania Allentown, Harrisburg, Northeast-Scranton,
> Philadelphia, Pittsburgh Puerto Rico Bayamon, Carolina, San Juan Rhode
> Island Providence South Carloina Columbia Tennessee Knoxville, Memphis,
> Nashville Texas Arlington, Austin, Beaumont, Carrollton, Corpus Christi,
> Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Houston, Irving, McAllen,
> Mesquite, Pasadena, Plano, Richardson, San Antonio, Victoria Utah Provo,
> Salt Lake City, West Valley Virginia Alexandria, Arlington Washington
> Bellevue, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver Wisconsin Milwaukee
>
> Then , remember EVDO is also 3G - even though it's CDMA and not totally
> germane to the issue..
>
> But, you claim "there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to
> think about it.
> 3G is only in about 35 cities"
>
> Since EVDO on both VZW and Sprint is nationwide, this further proves
> just how out of
> touch with reality you are.
>
> Oxford = 100% bullshit - always.
True that. If you look at the speed comparison on wikipedia, you can
see how much faster EVDO (which is 3G) is than ATT's 2G network (which
is HSPCD or something like that).
And no Oxtard, wifi would not be a viable option if you are in a moving
vehicle.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| In article < fhdo5j$8dg$2@registe
red.motzarella.org>,
Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> True that. If you look at the speed comparison on wikipedia, you can
> see how much faster EVDO (which is 3G) is than ATT's 2G network (which
> is HSPCD or something like that).
>
> And no Oxtard, wifi would not be a viable option if you are in a moving
> vehicle.
Hell, wifi wouldn't be a viable option in a parked car, unless you are
parked in a residential area AND everyone had their APs opened as per
Oxtard's wet dream AND the owners of said APs weren't currently using
the bandwidth they are paying for by actually USING their bandwidth for
their own use.
Bob Campbell
| |
|
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article < fhdo5j$8dg$2@registe
red.motzarella.org>,
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hell, wifi wouldn't be a viable option in a parked car, unless you are
> parked in a residential area AND everyone had their APs opened as per
> Oxtard's wet dream AND the owners of said APs weren't currently using
> the bandwidth they are paying for by actually USING their bandwidth for
> their own use.
>
> Bob Campbell
What Oxtard fails to realize is that people are smarter than him and
know not to do that. (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
bandwidth, ect)
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| In article < fhdopj$ch5$1@registe
red.motzarella.org>,
Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> What Oxtard fails to realize is that people are smarter than him
Well, that's not really saying much, is it? :-)
> and
> know not to do that. (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
> sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
> bandwidth, ect)
Yep. Mine is secured by MAC address, encryption and the SSID beacon is
turned off. No amount of Oxtard babbling is going to make me open it
up.
Bob Campbell
| |
| Ness Net 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-706B5C.18441713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
> Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
> upgrading the towers.
>
> No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
> Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
> market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
> will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
> like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
> the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
>
> The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
> "major" expense after the towers are up.
>
> The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
> well run market.
The idiot Oxford is totally out of touch with reality. The MINIMUM
connection
to a site is a T1. Many use a DS3 or bigger. Have any idea what that costs?
Now, multiply by the hundreds of sites in an MSA. Then the metro fiber rings
to tie it all together. Have any idea what an OC3 or bigger costs?
I do....
This is just the network to connect to the switches. Then, there are leases
that can run
many thousands a month. Then there is the electricity. Then, there is the
connections to
the POTS. Then there is the many millions for the switches.... and on and
on....
The above is just to maintain an existing network and existing sites.
A new site nowadays costs a mil or more to build. Most all systems add some
every year.
Some, quite a few.
Now, just how ludicrous is "$5, $6 range a month for unlimited access"....
EVERY post of yours shows your complete lack of any actual knowledge.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesosx-4247F5.08151613112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> typed:
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>
> no, all you do is buy a router with a range extender for $40, then you
> get FREE access to all other people doing the same. It's a one time cost.
>
>
> no, you aren't understanding the concept. it's FREE to use any of the
> others if you have a fon router yourself. so for $40 bucks "one time",
> you have access to all other fon routers worldwide.
>
> it's the shape of things to come, especially if Apple does it on a much
> larger scale.
>
> -
If you have a fon router yourself, then it's FREE to use any of the others.
But you have to pay some ISP to have your router connected to the internet
and provide service to others doing the same.
So everyone is paying the overpriced internet providers of access while
sharing that connection via WiFi.
| |
|
| Bob Campbell wrote:
> In article < fhdopj$ch5$1@registe
red.motzarella.org>,
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, that's not really saying much, is it? :-)
>
>
> Yep. Mine is secured by MAC address, encryption and the SSID beacon is
> turned off. No amount of Oxtard babbling is going to make me open it
> up.
>
> Bob Campbell
Now he is going to whine and complain that you won't let him leech your
wifi (which is illegal if he leeches wifi without the wifi owner's consent)
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-13, 10:33 pm |
| CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
yes, and I fully agree.
but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
90,000 or more. Why?
That is the question...
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| In news:colalovesosx-E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> typed:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and I fully agree.
>
> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?
>
> That is the question...
Perhaps they sell that much more. lol
Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fi...enue/index.html
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
> (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
> sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
> bandwidth, ect)
who really cares about an unsecured basestation if you have a Mac. you
are using windows so have false sense about security. Get a Mac and you
don't have to deal with security issues.
my current basestation is called iPhone.
people connect to it all the time for free. as it should be.
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> Yep. Mine is secured by MAC address, encryption and the SSID beacon is
> turned off. No amount of Oxtard babbling is going to make me open it
> up.
yes, if you are mentally retarded or need to be on medication, you would
do what you have done. but the spirit of apple is to share info for free
so you are basically a leach on the apple way of doing things.
you are simply selfish, that is clear.
-
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in news:colalovesosx-
E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and I fully agree.
>
> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?
They do more business. I would have thought that to be obvious. But of
course you are never acquainted with the obvious.
>
> That is the question...
No- the question is how can somebody as clueless as you actually survive?
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| In news:colalovesosx-A70D9A.21351213112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> typed:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> who really cares about an unsecured basestation if you have a Mac. you
> are using windows so have false sense about security. Get a Mac and you
> don't have to deal with security issues.
>
> my current basestation is called iPhone.
>
> people connect to it all the time for free. as it should be.
>
> -
You have a wireless router hooked to your iPhone providing free WiFi with
out a computer? lol
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in
news:colalovesosx-26B79C.21375113112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> yes, if you are mentally retarded or need to be on medication, you
> would do what you have done. but the spirit of apple is to share info
> for free so you are basically a leach on the apple way of doing
> things.
>
Oh...please stop....oh...I can't breath....I've haven't laughed like that
in years.
Apple has never shared anything for free and is the most proprietary and
closed technology company on the planet, which is why children like you
praise them so highly- they have made it impossible for you to develop free
thinking
> you are simply selfish, that is clear.
>
> -
>
And you are an idiot. Bob can easily become more giving if he chooses, but
you are sentenced to a lifetime of stupidity.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
90% of the world's cell phone do not have 3G. And yes, the ones that do
maybe using them happily but Apple goes for the level of "delight"...
something 3G can't offer customers as of yet.
>
> For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
ah, the iPhone has a fully user replaceable battery, and it's only $20
in the 3-4 year time frame.
http://snipurl.com/1tlyz
>
> Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
probably will never happen on a large scale, the US is too huge to make
slow, 3G feasible.
> Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
anywhere you go in my city you can just pull over and find an open
network. the iphone pulls it up automatically. nice!
> And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
> for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
> them it wasn't you.
what? that makes no sense. a cop wouldn't come to my city in the first
place, much less for something like porn.
> Not worth the hassle, IMO.
because you live in the restrictive UK, in the US we don't care about
rules.
-
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> 90% of the world's cell phone do not have 3G. And yes, the ones that do
> maybe using them happily but Apple goes for the level of "delight"...
> something 3G can't offer customers as of yet.
There's not much "delight" in seeking out a free wifi connection as a
substitute for slow 2G.
>
> ah, the iPhone has a fully user replaceable battery, and it's only $20
> in the 3-4 year time frame.
>
> http://snipurl.com/1tlyz
It's "fully user replaceable" in the sense that the engine in my car is
"fully user replaceable", but I'm not likely to be doing it at the
roadside should something break.
I can just see people disassembling their iPhones in Starbucks to swap
batteries. Bang goes their street cred.
Oh, and it voids your warranty.
>
> probably will never happen on a large scale, the US is too huge to make
> slow, 3G feasible.
>
>
> anywhere you go in my city you can just pull over and find an open
> network. the iphone pulls it up automatically. nice!
The UK is obviously ahead of the US, since very few aps are open, people
here have more sense.
>
> what? that makes no sense. a cop wouldn't come to my city in the first
> place, much less for something like porn.
You ran the Marshal out of town? This is the 21st century, not the Wild
West.
Never mind, just carry on living in your ivory tower (your mother's
basement) and when the cops come calling to find the kiddie porn someone
d/l on your wifi they'll take away all your computer kit, iPhone(s) etc
for six months forensic examination. That'll give us all peace...
>
> because you live in the restrictive UK, in the US we don't care about
> rules.
George Walter Bush is the prime example of that.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-11-14, 4:33 am |
| Peter Hayes < notinuse2@btinternet
.com> wrote:
>
> George Walter Bush is the prime example of that.
Woops... George Walker Bush is the prime example of that.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-14, 7:33 am |
| In article
<colalovesosx-26B79C.21375113112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> yes, if you are mentally retarded or need to be on medication, you would
> do what you have done. but the spirit of apple is to share info for free
Apple doesn't do ANYTHING for free!
Bob Campbell
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-14, 7:33 am |
| In article
<colalovesosx-A70D9A.21351213112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>
> who really cares about an unsecured basestation if you have a Mac.
I have 3 Macs and I absolutely care about my secured AP.
Bob Campbell
| |
|
| On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:37:51 -0700, Oxford wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> yes, if you are mentally retarded or need to be on medication, you would
> do what you have done. but the spirit of apple is to share info for free
> so you are basically a leach on the apple way of doing things.
>
> you are simply selfish, that is clear.
>
> -
That explains the John Doe searches and the web take down orders, doesn't
it?
--
Rick
| |
|
| In article <xVu_i.7149$LZ7.112@newsfe15.lga>,
"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> In news:colalovesosx-E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> typed:
>
> Perhaps they sell that much more. lol
>
> Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
> dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
> was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
> history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
>
> http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fi...enue/index.html
Actually, it opened May of last year.
FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
it out of his own pocket? True story.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-14, 3:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, it opened May of last year.
> FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
> it out of his own pocket? True story.
yes, and part of the stipulation is he gets to keep it if he ever leaves
apple. kinda funny.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-14, 3:33 pm |
| Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
> with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976,
set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983,
set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987,
set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989,
set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then
set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year,
set the wireless trend in 2000, set the firewire trend that same year,
set the iPod trend in 2001, set the bluetooth trend in 2003, set the dvd
burning trend in 2004, set the wireless audio trend in 2005, on and on...
this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994:
"It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the computer
industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up with Apple."
what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't
name a single thing.
-
| |
|
| Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote in
news:colalovesosx-62E5D5.13203214112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
>
> this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994:
>
> "It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the
> computer industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up
> with Apple."
>
A thirteen year old article? A snippet from a thirteen year old article?
Too bad the same hasn't true for the last thirteen years.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<colalovesosx-62E5D5.13203214112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976,
Nope. PCs existed before 1976.
> set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983,
Nope. Floppies existed before Apple. Xerox set the GUI trend.
> set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987,
Nope. Xerox again.
> set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989,
The multimedia trend was started by the Amiga in 1985. Hard for Apple
to "set" it 3 years later! Ethernet again was a Xerox thing.
> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then
Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
> set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year,
USB was a common standard, led by Intel and MS among others. Apple
wasn't even a part of it's creation.
The only one you got right was the iPod.
> what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't
> name a single thing.
Used faster Intel chips and motherboards - Apple followed.
Set the lower pricing trend - Apple has yet to follow.
Set the CD burning trend - Apple completely missed the boat on that one.
Remember the original iMacs with NO REMOVABLE STORAGE AT ALL? Apple
(reluctantly) followed.
Set the business computer use trend. Apple has yet to follow.
Set the server trend. Apple has yet to follow.
Bob Campbell
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Bob Campbell wrote:
> Oxford < colalovesosx@supersm
art.com> wrote:
> Ethernet again was a Xerox thing.
It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989.
Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's
Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of
that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that
became SUN was before that. Cisco was well underway by 1984.
> Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or
NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it".
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| |
| Nobody you want to meet.... 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| <snip>
take the discussioin somewhere else.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| "Nobody you want to meet...." <silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:B7CdnQoWtohcBKb
anZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> <snip>
> take the discussioin somewhere else.
>
>
>
Learn how to filter.
| |
| Bob Campbell 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711141601360.4728@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washignton.EDU>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or
> NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it".
Yep. Which means that when Oxtard is sitting in his bedroom of his
parents house watching porn on his Mac, in his mind he's "doing it with
SJ".
Bob Campbell
| |
| Nobody you want to meet.... 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| Learn how to read the name of the group :)
"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> wrote in message
news:Xns99E8B81F7DBF
8isheforreal@216.196.97.142...
> "Nobody you want to meet...." <silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:B7CdnQoWtohcBKb
anZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> Learn how to filter.
| |
| Scott 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| "Nobody you want to meet...." <silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:37WdnTvDy7qrLKb
anZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> Learn how to read the name of the group :)
>
\
What makes you think I can't?
Oh, I get it- you just learned how and don't think anybody else can do it.
| |
| Nobody you want to meet.... 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| I don't know.. because if you can read.. then one would assume that this
post was being cross referenced, and this post is just bulls*** talking
about some damn thing that doesnt make no sense! I've come to conclusion
that people are an idiot and they say stupid things, just to get their
attention, hence this guy named Oxford. he annoys everyone on purpose
because he get kick out of this, knowing that everyone will response to his
comments.
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:NZWdnZxvvfDeIab
anZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> "Nobody you want to meet...." <silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:37WdnTvDy7qrLKb
anZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
> \
>
> What makes you think I can't?
>
> Oh, I get it- you just learned how and don't think anybody else can do it.
| |
| The Ghost of General Lee 2007-11-14, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:42:40 -0600, "Nobody you want to meet...."
<silky_mez@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't know.. because if you can read.. then one would assume that this
>post was being cross referenced
You know, there's a way to fix that.
| |
| Maverick 2007-11-15, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976,
> set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983,
> set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987,
> set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989,
> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then
> set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year,
> set the wireless trend in 2000, set the firewire trend that same year,
> set the iPod trend in 2001, set the bluetooth trend in 2003, set the dvd
> burning trend in 2004, set the wireless audio trend in 2005, on and on...
>
> this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994:
>
> "It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the computer
> industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up with Apple."
>
> what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't
> name a single thing.
>
Nothing more than editorial opinion.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-16, 4:33 am |
| In article <bob-86AD9B.18193014112007@news.supernews.com>,
Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> Nope. PCs existed before 1976.
>
>
> Nope. Floppies existed before Apple. Xerox set the GUI trend.
>
>
> Nope. Xerox again.
>
>
> The multimedia trend was started by the Amiga in 1985. Hard for Apple
> to "set" it 3 years later! Ethernet again was a Xerox thing.
>
>
> Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
>
>
> USB was a common standard, led by Intel and MS among others. Apple
> wasn't even a part of it's creation.
>
> The only one you got right was the iPod.
>
>
> Used faster Intel chips and motherboards - Apple followed.
>
> Set the lower pricing trend - Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Set the CD burning trend - Apple completely missed the boat on that one.
> Remember the original iMacs with NO REMOVABLE STORAGE AT ALL? Apple
> (reluctantly) followed.
>
> Set the business computer use trend. Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Set the server trend. Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Bob Campbell
poor bob, clearly doesn't know his computing history!
wrong on all counts except one.
grade F
step it up a notch Bob, or risk being plonked
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-16, 4:33 am |
| Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
> It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989.
Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD
starting in 1984 with the Mac. Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they
were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all
their machines. They first used the AAUI connector which allowed...
coaxial or twisted-pair ethernet on the same machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Apple... />
t_Interface
Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on
all their machines. Apple has always been ahead of the PC market with
networking, probably since they control the OS and the Hardware, MS
never had that kind of power in the market.
> Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's
> Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of
> that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that
> became SUN was before that. Cisco was well underway by 1984.
Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to
have ethernet as standard long before PCs did.
Steve Jobs is on my eternal heroes list, there's nothing he can ever do
to get off it - Bob Metcalfe
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html
>
> Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or
> NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it".
Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the
early games like Breakout, the first PC of course, WWW (NeXT) and
Animation Industries (Pixar). Pretty much everything technical you use
today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale.
Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never
be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years Mark, I know you
are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are
learning. Good to see it!
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-16, 4:33 am |
| Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
> Mac tower? | | |