mdriftmeyer
Apr 12, 11:19 PM
Reading the comments about $299 being a pretty good deal truly makes me laugh. Ten years ago a system of such capacity would be > $50K and you're downplaying $299.
Grow some perspective.
Grow some perspective.
eawmp1
Mar 13, 10:08 AM
More people have died in hydroelectric or coal generated power production. Nuclear is relatively safe and clean.
Consultant
Feb 15, 04:49 PM
That's like arguing Linux will rule all computers in 201xyz.
Interesting thought... I guess that's why so few people develop for the Iphone. Probably explains the paltry 150,000 apps written in the last eighteen months and the pitiful 3,000,000,000 downloads.
I wish we had more .net developers cranking out apps a rate of 4 a year. Hopefully, Apple will learn from the folks in Redmond and really start making useful stuff.
Plus the apple app store is confirmed to own close to 95% of mobile app market.
Interesting thought... I guess that's why so few people develop for the Iphone. Probably explains the paltry 150,000 apps written in the last eighteen months and the pitiful 3,000,000,000 downloads.
I wish we had more .net developers cranking out apps a rate of 4 a year. Hopefully, Apple will learn from the folks in Redmond and really start making useful stuff.
Plus the apple app store is confirmed to own close to 95% of mobile app market.
campingsk8er
May 2, 09:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Consultant
Apr 20, 05:31 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
There are already a score of malware and spyware on Android, including software that phish for bank customer information of Fandroids.
.jpg "arack obama family.")
Speedy2
Oct 7, 01:04 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
Yes. Google tries to be a better Microsoft by providing an _open_ software platform for multiple hardware makers, but they will not replicate MS's success, since MS dominated the OS market from the beginning and knew how to milk it whereas Google was late to a crowded party. Google may offer cheap drinks, but not fancier ones.
computers: MS and Intel take the cream and will do for a long time thanks to their near-unbreakable monopolies, most others are struggling.
mobiles: Nokia TOOK the cream in the past, in the future it will be Nokia, RIMM and Apple. It don't see any chance for Google to make equally big profits here. Android is merely treated as a means to secure their Web monopoly.
pmz
Mar 18, 09:13 AM
And stop making silly assumptions about subjects you know nothing about.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
I've had an iPhone for a few years now and have unlimited data.
It's a very clear line to me and many/most people who aren't so stubborn to think of the big picture.
You can only use x amount of data a month using your phone if you're on an unlimited plan. Realistically - even if you're eating as much as you can - there's a "limit" you can reach. Not because of ATT - but because of what your phone can actually access/handle. ATT's bean counters multiply/average out typical usage on a single device basis.
Now if you use that phone to supply 2,3,4 or more devices - you are using data in a way that was not agreed upon and isn't in line with what has been accounted for. If you don't understand this basic concept - there's little I can do. You can not LIKE it. But if you don't understand that there's a difference here - then you're lost.
Conversely - if someone spends money to buy a clearly finite (and smaller) chunk of data - and they want to spread it out however they want - I see little problem with that. The fact that ATT does bothers me. But it's not my problem as I don't have that plan and I don't tether using my iPhone.
This same thread/discussion has happened a million times before. Those that feel "entitled" will argue every excuse under the sun why they should be allowed and how evil ATT is. And those that can see the big picture of cause/effect will be seen by those people as shills or some other name calling word.
And I just LOVE (sarcasm) that people bring up wanting to sue or that they could go to court over this. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ones own actions.
ETA:
ATT sold you an iPhone Unlimited Data Plan
Do you understand - it was an IPHONE unlimited data plan. They didn't sell you an unlimited iPhone + laptop + desktop + ipad + other device data plan.
It's always the guilty who shout the loudest because they really have nothing to lose, do they. At best - they might get away with it - at worst, their situation remains the same.
Sounds to me like you're pissed you got caught. That's all that's happening here...
Quite simply, you're wrong, and worse you're creating fantasy. You claim tethering was not agreed upon. What was, exactly? Using safari? What about Opera?
I think not. Get your frigging facts straight before opening your mouth. AT&T screwed up when they offered unlimited data, and they're content to break the law in order to fix their mistake.
Alaerian
Apr 11, 11:03 AM
The only real advantage, aside from aesthetics, macs have over PC is more user friendly video/music editing. Speaking from experience here,
you can do the same on a PC, but it's slightly more difficult.
Unless you're buying some old/bad brand, a PC will normally give you greater hardware capabilities and you can always dual boot or just only use the Mac OS.
Of course, it's speaking about games, but that also doubles as video/music editing capability.
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
you can do the same on a PC, but it's slightly more difficult.
Unless you're buying some old/bad brand, a PC will normally give you greater hardware capabilities and you can always dual boot or just only use the Mac OS.
Of course, it's speaking about games, but that also doubles as video/music editing capability.
seriously, stop spreading crap like this. You make it plainly obvious that you have never actually used a mac. Or, that you're a 20-something kid who values your precious soul-sucking video games above all else.
I'm sorry if YOU can't see any value in a mac - you aren't looking very hard. Try loading OSX on your pc. Go ahead. I'll wait. Oh, make sure it is full functionality too. I want gestures, I want full printing and network support, everything. You say you have it? Prove it. Give me screen shots, video with audio, etc.
I'm sorry, but I loathe posts like yours. If you are so anti-mac, then good for you. Enjoy your world, but stay the hell out of ours.
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
takao
Mar 13, 05:18 PM
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
beaster
Sep 12, 06:49 PM
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
DVD = 480i, not 480p.
-Sean
DVD = 480i, not 480p.
-Sean
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 08:58 AM
are you trying to be funny?
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
because:
a) you are not
b) it seems quite inappropriate
and if you are not. wow.
I'm joking about Afghanistan. It's supposed to be an Isreal joke, but obviously you didn't get it. And I think it's funny! ;)
Regarding the relocation, I think that would be pretty cool. Why not? If it boiled down to it, I think what I said would be pretty practical and beneficial.
Macaroony
Apr 24, 01:34 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam. Call me a bigot or "islamophobe" but that's just burying one's head in the sand. Thus, I support Rational Secularists, Atheists, Agnostics, Israel, Judaism (Orthodox), Christians, and Eastern faiths like Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, etc etc.
Apologies if I've left anyone out.
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Hahaha, if I doubted your gayness for one second, you really convinced me with that last part..."self-hate". (very standard, piss-poor rebuttal I get from every butt-hurt gay (no pun intended!) that feels MY views don't align with theirs)
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Sorry, kiddo, I do not hate myself or my fellow gays and lesbians. AT ALL. Go ahead and step outta the glittered box you live in and learn to understand that one does NOT have to support every single aspect of this lifestyle. Are you effing crazy, dude!??
We're all quick to criticize the Apple fanboys who drink Steve's kool-aid, but guess what, I'm no "fanboy". I'm a gay male. Not an uber fan of the gay agenda that supports every bit of it. I don't. DEAL WITH IT.
How dare you say I hate myself just because I have a entirely different point of view.
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Longey Nowze
May 5, 08:25 PM
I don't think it's an iPhone problem, I live outside the US and I have never had a dropped call. I have also used the iPhone in various countries including the US in Boston to be exact and I experienced no problems.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
My husband has been an AT&T user for over a decade. He never experienced dropped calls until we started dating and he was talking to me (I'm on an iPhone, he is not). We often get disconnected 2-4 times per hour as we talk during our commutes home. We have different shifts, but take the same routes home and we get dropped no matter whether I'm stationary and he's moving, vice versa, or if we're both moving. This also happens when we're on business trips - both stationary - him at home, me in a hotel - and we will get disconnected. The recurring motif has been the iPhone. When I talk with others who have AT&T but no iPhone, they only get disconnected when they are talking w/ someone who has an iPhone. The worst issue is when I am communicating w/ someone iPhone to iPhone.
IF this wasn't the iPhone and otherwise so awesome, I would have switched a long time ago... and frankly, I'm still contemplating going to another phone when my contract is up - because the dropped calls are so aggravating.
Coworkers of mine that have switched from Blackberry on AT&T to iPhone have reported an inordinant number of disconnected calls since switching to the iPhone, even though it's the same carrier, same phone number and same physical location of use.
My "assumption" is that the iPhone software is making some errant call to the tower intermittently (whether too high/low power request or other issue) at which point, the tower drops the call.
While my experience with disconnects are sometimes random, there are some places that either I or my husband will be travelling by, when we will experience a disconnect - a place where he never gets disconnected while speaking to others w/o iPhones... places I never got disconnected before having an iPhone, either.
This may not be just an AT&T issue. It could be when you are a certain distance from a tower (lower power or significantly higher power?) and/or the phone is experiencing a push of data, that the interrupt happens.
This has largely been the elephant in the living room that AT&T and Apple has been ignoring. I have not only not seen an improvement, I've seen the situation get worse over time - whether this has to do w/ an increase of iPhone use faster than the towers can keep up, OR problems w/ iPhone OS updates or a combination of both - who knows. They need to fix this already.
Howdr
Mar 18, 01:10 PM
Look I'm not childish or demanding I just disagree with the way At&t has sucked many of us into the Unlimited plan from the beginning. After a time we all had it and they came out with the secrete 5GB idea. You want posts of me complaining back in 2008? Why ? I don't have to prove anything to anyone to state my opinion and dislike of the policy.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
Don't point the finger at me and say I'm stealing, I paid for my internet use every month for over 3 years now.
I'll cut back on the righteous talk if the finger pointing stops.
I do not tether on a regular basis and have not for 6 months.
I do not Download with my phone except apps and docs.
I agree there can be abuse even with unlimited
(ie: the people who claim 90 and 120Gb a month DL)
You feel your right,
I feel I'm right,
we disagree, end of story :cool:
Also At&t will do this from time to time and unless something changes that stops them there is nothing we can do about it.
jeremyb66
Apr 13, 02:02 AM
So this is basically a jazzed up Final Cut Express and the pros have been shown the door. Why am I not shocked about this. :mad:
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
Someday I'll tell my kids that Apple was the company for pros to which they will laugh in disbelief; kind of how I do now when old people tell me that American cars were once high quality.
I think u r right about apple but I have I have a F150 XLT 2011 and it's great!
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 13, 03:40 PM
We don't need nuclear, or coal or oil for that matter.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
That would destroy the local ecology (yes, there IS ecology there) as well as a number of historical and archaeological sites, and obliterate native-owned lands that provide subsistence in the form of pine nuts and springs among other things. There is nowhere in the US were a 100x100mi solar array would be acceptable.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 07:15 PM
Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Thank you for admonishing me on my reading comprehension. Perhaps you could make yourself available for private tutoring to help those of us who are disadvantaged.
Burning hydrocarbons may produce less CO2 than nuclear fission, however I would be interested in seeing the entire process quantified.
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?
All of these need to be taken into account when one considers how green nuclear power is.
Thank you for admonishing me on my reading comprehension. Perhaps you could make yourself available for private tutoring to help those of us who are disadvantaged.
Burning hydrocarbons may produce less CO2 than nuclear fission, however I would be interested in seeing the entire process quantified.
How much power does it take to provide and maintain storage of the waste, and to mine the uranium? What impact does the operation of the plant have on the environment? What is the cost to humans and the environment when these plants fail as they have?
All of these need to be taken into account when one considers how green nuclear power is.
DakotaGuy
May 16, 04:00 PM
Please note that non of the supposed "BETTER" carriers have the iphone congesting there network with psychotic amounts of data congestion especially in the larger cities like New York this is such a ******** biased statement and study that AT&T is having excessive dropped calls.
The iPhone data use will not have any effect on the Verizon voice network. The Verizon network is designed to keep voice separate from data. With that said I don't think it matters. I don't think we will see the iPhone on another carrier before 2012. If AT&T doesn't work for you either wait another 2 years or do what I did and switch to an Android phone.
The iPhone data use will not have any effect on the Verizon voice network. The Verizon network is designed to keep voice separate from data. With that said I don't think it matters. I don't think we will see the iPhone on another carrier before 2012. If AT&T doesn't work for you either wait another 2 years or do what I did and switch to an Android phone.
alex_ant
Oct 11, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
And I care why? It doesn't matter how fast you can surf on your PC. I can get around fast enough on my Mac. People who say Mac's are too slow are the same people that never take the time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid.
Or perhaps the people who say Macs are too slow are the ones who would like more time to watch a sunset or spend a day with their kid?
linuxcooldude
Apr 13, 02:09 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
It seems you don't have faith in your own ability as if your trying to compete with an average 16 year old. Don't blame the tools alone.
The same thing was said when local garage bands were recording music from an average PC in the 80's. Most record labels won't go to a teenager to record a well known bands music.
No comments:
Post a Comment