In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
> > why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> > that simple.
>
> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
weep!
-
Gadgets
Apple iPhone
Cellphone 2.0
While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.
It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
Web page that¹s littered with them.
The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.
Oxford wrote:
> David <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
>
> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.
>
> for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
> why, but bitching about it won't make the iPhone go away.
I think you have a very over inflated idea about yourself. No one is
"scared" of you. And frankly you make a fool of yourself by posting
fanboi dribble that you don't even understand.
>
> i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
> the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.
>
> if you don't like it, leave.
Thats fine but "Oxford" simply has no credibility.
DTC wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>> do you have any other questions i can help you with?
>
> And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
> which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
> any less at 5.8 GHz?
Hmmm...no answer yet. Google may be experiencing some issues.
Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
>>> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
>> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.
No, you meet the definition of a fanboi. You read marketing speak that
is intended as bait for fanbois. Then you decide to post it in groups
where it is not wanted like it is the news of the century without even
knowing it is BS.
I will give you a free clue. You may think you are posting exciting
"news" but most people are already on overload and annoyed by BS
marketing speak.
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -
I am not mad but I can understand why you might be. You posted something
you didn't understand and totally discredited yourself.
In news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> typed:
> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
>
>>> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
>>> that simple.
>>
>> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
>>>SNIP<<<
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html
On the same page they also had an award for the following:
Oxford wrote:
> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
>
>>> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
>>> that simple.
>> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
> While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
> the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
> confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
> a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.
>
> It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
> cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
> zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
> behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
> the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
> Web page that¹s littered with them.
>
> The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
> interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
> it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
> stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
> messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html
How can the iPhone be better if:
1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
>>> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
>> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.
>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -
Nokia N800? LG Voyager?
I guess you never heard of them. They do everything the iphail does AND
MORE AND BETTER!
Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>>> Google simply doesn't have any experience in hardware, nor any sales
>>> experience to go it alone, and while an mutual Apple/Google bid is
>>> possible. Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>> No, Apple cannot outbid google.
>
> Apple is wealthier than Google, I don't think you realize that.
>
>> And guess what, GOOGLE HAS SALES EXPERIENCE!
>
> Yes, selling little classified Ads on websites, but to sell a phone,
> they have no idea. That's why they confirmed they wouldn't try and make
> a phone a few weeks ago.
>
> If the technical details can be worked out, Apple will buy a portion of
> the spectrum, Apple has far more engineering talent that Google could
> ever dream of...
You never heard of Google Earth Pro? Google Web Tools (server
management tools)?
> How can the iPhone be better if:
>
> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
phone fat and battery draining.
> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
you think about it.
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> How can the iPhone be better if:
>>
>> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.
My phone's 3G, the battery is far from fat and it goes for days between
charges.
>
>> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
Because we need something more than the fanboi crap you watch.
>
>> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
Actually, Verizon told Apple to go away.
>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.
>
No- many people that "do" have them are more upset than we are, fanboi.
Oxford wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> How can the iPhone be better if:
>>
>> 1. Its 2.5G in a world of 3G!
>
> ah, it's a 2G world, 3G isn't ready for prime time, plus makes your
> phone fat and battery draining.
>
No actually, my phone is smaller than most phones, is 3G, and battery
hasnt seen a charger for 8 days, and still has 3 out of 4 batter levels
left.
>> 2. It has NO mobile tv, when lots of phones coming out do!
>
> nobody wants tv on a phone, youtube and the web, but tv? why?
Why have just youtube and other web videos when you can have youtube,
web videos, AND TV?!?!
>
>> 3. Failed to impress the first carrier it went to, VERIZON!
>
> actually, Verizon lost the contract since they didn't understand how
> popular the iPhone would become. Even the head of the FCC is amazed by
> the iPhone, and everyone that owns one is in love.
>
> It's only the people that "don't" have them are upset. kinda funny when
> you think about it.
No, they didn't lose the contract, the said NO to Apple, as the iPhone
is old technology.
> Verizon probably passed because Apple wouldn't let them cripple it like
> they do the rest of their hardware.
Probably.
The irony is, of course, Apple then crippled it themselves in the same
major way Verizon does- limit BT to handsfree only, preventing DUN and BT
file transfer.
Stick a red and black theme on it, and it'd fit right in with Verizon's
lineup! ;-)
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
expense.
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
> and weep!
There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
buying one...
Except for one problem.
Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
"work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
like a champ.
Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
NETWORK that works.
"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD6spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.9 9.130...
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>
"David M. Moore" <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99EDC3D14CCD6spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.9 9.130...
> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
> news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
>> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> So you were stating fact in your original post? I'll try to remember
> that next time you state that analog TV is networked like wi-fi and could
> easily be changed to offer nationwide internet with little change or
> expense.
>
>> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it
>> and weep!
>
> There is one thing that makes me sad about the iPhone, and this may
> surprise you. I actually think the iPhone really is a rather nice phone,
> and if it now truly supports third-party applications as Steve claims, it
> would be the almost perfect PDA/phone (although it would be better if it
> also included Bluetooth support). And I would have been interested in
> buying one...
>
> Except for one problem.
>
> Unfortunately, and this is the part that makes me sad, they picked a
> pretend network like ATT, instead of a network that actually does the
> "work" part. I live in a rural area, and work and travel in a five state
> area, and ATT *SUCKS*. Verizon Wireless, on the other hand, is a real
> network and is the undisputed leader in this area. If you want a neat
> phone but don't mind that you can't actually make a call with it three
> quarters of the time, you can get an iPhone and use ATT. But if you want
> to actually depend on your phone to make *phone calls*, you go with
> Verizon Wireless. Nothing makes me laugh harder than when someone I know
> with ATT asks to borrow my poor little Verizon Wireless Chocolate because
> they can't get a signal on theirs, and mine's got full meter and performs
> like a champ.
>
> Remember, in your statement above, the *PHONE* won the Popular Science
> award...its associated wireless carrier did not.
>
> So when Steve gets his head out of his ass and his penis out of his hand
> and puts the phone on a real network without having to hack it, sign me
> up. Until then, its just an expensive toy, and I need a phone AND
> NETWORK that works.
>
Verizon turned it down. Where I live, Both AT&T and Verizon have good
signal. Then a few miles down the road one has crap signal and another few
miles away the other is better.
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:rks0j.319$AR7.283@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Verizon turned it down. Where I live, Both AT&T and Verizon have good
> signal. Then a few miles down the road one has crap signal and another
> few miles away the other is better.
It didn't surprise me in the least that Verizon turned them down. Verizon
is such a control freak over its hardware, just like Apple, that them doing
a phone together would be like the proverbial unstopable force hitting the
immovable object. Contract negotiations would be like during the Korean
war where it was a major deal just to decide on the size and shape of the
table to be used for peace talks :-)
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/com.../2006/03/70512
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth
-- and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done.
Microsoft won a long time ago." -- Fortune, Feb. 19, 1996
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/com...?currentPage=2
"The desktop computer industry is dead. Innovation has virtually ceased.
Microsoft dominates with very little innovation. That's over. Apple
lost. The desktop market has entered the dark ages, and it's going to be
in the dark ages for the next 10 years, or certainly for the rest of
this decade." -- Wired magazine, February 1996
"I'm the only person I know that's lost a quarter of a billion dollars
in one year.... It's very character-building." -- Apple Confidential 2.0
Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-68CA0E.22145017112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When you author a post as you did with no attribution you are taking
>> full responsibility for the accuracy because they are *your words*.
>
> go cry me a river george. you forget, i simply don't care as long as the
> information is interesting. it was, so i posted it. deal with it.
In article <SIOdnV7KbdkmddvanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@trueband.net>,
"Edgar" <edgar@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Ah yes! Oxfartretard is so clueless that he can't even figure out how basic
> things work. He should go home and shoot himself in the head!
no one who top posts can be taken seriously.
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
In article <0172j.15$6U6.12@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 24 Nov 2007 21:43:28 -0500 james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
> > no one who top posts can be taken seriously.
>
> Personally, I judge a person by the contents of his or her words rather
> than where they decide to place them.
i'm not at all surprised that's you'd overlook usenet guidelines and
courtesy.
> Top posting is far less annoying than, say, ignoring the rules of
> capitalization.
but, perhaps not as annoying as whining, eh?
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on
Monday, the company said in a news release. Google's application will not
include any partners.
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
> of 2008. They need to buy about 22 Mhz of the spectrum (60Mhz is being
> sold) to cover the entire country.
>
> Now you understand why Apple didn't want to be locked into the old 3G
> standard.
>
> As you may know, AT&T bought Aloha Partners 700Mhz... about 10 Mhz or
> about half the country. They need more. The market has vastly
> underestimated Steve's influence at AT&T as well as the money Apple is
> getting from AT&T.
>
> The 700Mhz frequency is Gold in the sky! A wireless internet will one
> day be all there is. Whoever owns this beach front property owns the
> cell phone world. And no one will ever sell this to a competitor. Apple
> must buy in or control this area if they are to control their cell phone
> experience. And here's the best part.
>
> As this network is already built out for analogue TV, it will cost
> little to change things for Wimaxx. Instant nationwide network that goes
> through walls way easier than any other Mhz band. So reception is
> better, distance travels longer and coverage is nationwide just as
> analogue TV is...and it will cost very little to maintain relative to
> what cell phone companies compete with... you only need 1/4 of the sites
> as the 1.8Ghz that most cell phones use. So others use a weaker signal
> which equates to more lost calls and static, more sites, higher
> expenses, etc..
>
> Apple could pull of the coup d'etat of the century, if they said, buy
> your cell phone and use our Wimaxx to dial any number in the US and
> receive any call fo the monthly price of $0 for 2 years.... the iPhone
> would be the hottest product even more so than the Razor was... just
> think of a cell that is free for 2 years.. that's huge... what does
> Apple gain from this...they could probably sell 100 million iPhones at
> $299 each over a 2 year period or less and own the cell phone market.
>
> Then charge $50 per month for unlimited calling plans... still a good
> deal... and half or more of that would be profit! At say $30 per month
> multiplied by 100 million iPhones that's 3 billion a month or 36 billion
> per year... or $40 per share in earnings added to whatever else they
> sell... you're talking a stock price over $1,000 a share... maybe even
> $1,500.
>
> If this takes 2-3-4-5 years... that's a 10 bagger! Apple will be the
> largest publicly traded company in the country and own both the computer
> and cell phone market.
>
> ---
>
> Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on
> Monday, the company said in a news release. Google's application will
> not include any partners.
>
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._spectrum.html
>
>
Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?
> "Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
> news:linuxlovesosx-E4C12F.21155116112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
>> Well, here's the word. Apple with or without Google/AT&T will bid on the
>> 700Mhz spectrum that will be auctioned by the US Government in January
>> of 2008.
how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything, so the press
can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
Google bids on the spectrum.
you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.
i realize you don't keep up with these tactical corporate events News,
but please learn a bit more about the situation before you post again.
Oxford wrote:
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._bid_for_700_m
>>>hz_spectrum.html
>>
>>
>>Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog boys?
>
>
> how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything, so the press
> can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
> Google bids on the spectrum.
>
> you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
> case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
> things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.
Please share your info on bidder collusion with the SEC, DOJ and FCC.
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-E4CB20.09331901122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...oogle_to_bid_f
>> > or_700_m hz_spectrum.html
>>
>>
>> Wait, didn't Oxy-moron promise SJ would put the kibosh on the Goog
>> boys?
>
> how would anyone know? SJ doesn't pre-announce anything,
He pre-announces everything. Pre-market hype is what Apple is all about.
Hype the hell out of a product before the consumer gets it in their hands
and realizes what a piece of crap it is- that's the Apple way.
> so the press
> can only make up theories, we'll only know for sure when / if Apple or
> Google bids on the spectrum.
Google is bidding, Apple won't. Bank on it.
>
> you need to keep in mind Google and Apple are partners, so it's not a
> case of Apple against Google... it's a case of how Google will set
> things up for Apple if Google decides to bid, and visa-versa.
Google has stated that their bid is being done without the intent to have a
partner in the venture.
>
> i realize you don't keep up with these tactical corporate events News,
> but please learn a bit more about the situation before you post again.
>
Re: Apple To Own Wireless 700Mhz Network 
Linear Mode
