MiFi purchase and contract options?

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:31:49 -0700, nospam <[email protected]>
wrote:

>what matters is whether calls drop, which based on reports (from the
>same people who say the bars drop) say is not happening.

If that were true, and it's not, this whole story about the iPhone 4's
antenna wouldn't have happened.

>many are
>saying the iphone 4 holds calls better than other phones.

Few have said that. By far the majority have said that calls drop when
they hold the iPhone 4 a certain way.

---

› See More: MiFi purchase and contract options?

In message <[email protected]> tlvp
<[email protected]> was claimed to have wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:48:35 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:07:02 -0400, in
>> <[email protected]>, tlvp
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Essentially *all* the data was recovered.
>> The only exceptions were those users who ignored advice to sit tight and
>> wait, instead trying things on their own, which mangled their data,
>> which they then complained about, even though it was their own fault.
>
>Should one really call it "their own fault" if the "advice to sit tight and wait"
>that they ignored was advice that, for whatever reason(s), never reached them?

Or, what if they didn't really have a choice? A battery running out was
all it took to cause data loss here.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:03:56 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:30:45 -0400, in
> <[email protected]>, tlvp
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:48:35 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:07:02 -0400, in
>>> <[email protected]>, tlvp
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Essentially *all* the data was recovered.
>>> The only exceptions were those users who ignored advice to sit tight and
>>> wait, instead trying things on their own, which mangled their data,
>>> which they then complained about, even though it was their own fault.
>>
>> Should one really call it "their own fault" if the "advice to sit tight and wait"
>> that they ignored was advice that, for whatever reason(s), never reached them?
>>
>>> Such users probably wouldn't have done any better backing up data on
>>> their own, and would have still complained when something went wrong.
>>
>> There was certainly an implicit uptime guarantee that was violated
>> for them to complain about -- several weeks before restoration of data, no?
>>
>>> There will always be those who refuse to take responsibility for their
>>> own actions.
>>
>> Yup: MS, Danger, T-Mo -- those are the first to come to mind here :-) .
>> Or are you trying to pass the blame onto the victims?
>
> There's blame to go around, vendors and users.
> Playing the part of victim doesn't impress me.

You're right: all the warning signals were there:
T-mobile ... Microsoft ... Danger!

Cheers, -- tlvp


--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 02:25:03 -0400, in
<[email protected]>, tlvp
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:03:56 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:30:45 -0400, in
>> <[email protected]>, tlvp
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:48:35 -0400, John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:07:02 -0400, in
>>>> <[email protected]>, tlvp
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Essentially *all* the data was recovered.
>>>> The only exceptions were those users who ignored advice to sit tight and
>>>> wait, instead trying things on their own, which mangled their data,
>>>> which they then complained about, even though it was their own fault.
>>>
>>> Should one really call it "their own fault" if the "advice to sit tight and wait"
>>> that they ignored was advice that, for whatever reason(s), never reached them?
>>>
>>>> Such users probably wouldn't have done any better backing up data on
>>>> their own, and would have still complained when something went wrong.
>>>
>>> There was certainly an implicit uptime guarantee that was violated
>>> for them to complain about -- several weeks before restoration of data, no?
>>>
>>>> There will always be those who refuse to take responsibility for their
>>>> own actions.
>>>
>>> Yup: MS, Danger, T-Mo -- those are the first to come to mind here :-) .
>>> Or are you trying to pass the blame onto the victims?
>>
>> There's blame to go around, vendors and users.
>> Playing the part of victim doesn't impress me.
>
>You're right: all the warning signals were there:
>T-mobile ... Microsoft ... Danger!

“Warning, Will Robinson! Danger!”

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> 'the' current algorithm? there is no single one.
> >
> > There is more than one on an iphone 4?
>
> Yes, you can select a lower-reading scale by simply touching the exposed
> antenna...

That's just Apple's way of saying you can look at the iPhone 4 but don't
touch.