Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 167
  1. #151
    Jesus
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    On Nov 12, 9:28 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > > > Has everyone forgotten that Oxford doesn't even USE a cell phone? He
    > > > > doesn't need to! He carries around his Macintosh and uses some software
    > > > > to make and receive phone calls.

    >
    > > > > Why he's here talking about the iPhone is a mystery.

    >
    > > > Actually, I have 2 iPhones now. Please try and keep up Elmo.

    >
    > > So you went from 0 cell phones, stating that you "don't need a cell
    > > phone, never have, in fact your Macintosh setup is far superior to a
    > > cell phone" to "now I have 2 iPhones".

    >
    > > So tell us all about your experties with cell phones.

    >
    > I've dealt with client cell phones for years and all their quirks, poor
    > sync software and horrible screens. Blackberries, Nokia, Samsung and all
    > the rest. That's what makes me an expert of how bad they are. I had an
    > Verizon Mot Phone for a couple years, but when it was clear the iPhone
    > project was going forward, I dropped it and went right to using my
    > PowerBook for wireless. Works well to this day, but the iPhone is
    > smaller.
    >
    > We'll see what happens in San Francisco on Jan 15th, if the rumored 1/2
    > inch thin 12" MacBook Pro appears, I'll sell off the PowerBook (what i'm
    > typing on right now) and move up to the super thin model.
    >
    > Life is grand!


    I thought you said Intel sucked and that you were going to stick with
    PowerPC.




    See More: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!




  2. #152
    gomez
    Guest

    Re: iPhone is major hit in the UK, DE! See Video!

    On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:11:43 -0700, Oxford
    <[email protected]> dropped the following oil-slick:

    >gomez <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> > Nokia is toast at the high end.

    >>
    >> That may well be the case if Apple ever get round to making a phone
    >> for that sector of the market.

    >
    >what? not sure what you mean?
    >
    >it's a no brainer that Apple will come out with many cell phone models
    >that hit lower price points for the less sophisticated buyer.
    >

    Whoosh!
    --
    gomez
    Honda TransAlp,KTM 640LC Enduro (For Sale)
    (not is not to reply)
    "The best tool for the job is the hammer thats nearest to hand"



  3. #153
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> > the density of 802.11 access points is increasing at an extreme
    >> > rate and is much faster than 3G, so having a phone that works with
    >> > data faster than 3G is the future.

    >>
    >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.

    >
    > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
    >
    > the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it free,
    > then everyone wins.


    And how do you propose to backhaul those wireless connections for free?

    Unless you can answer that, you simply show your inability to understand
    the technology.



  4. #154
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

    > >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.

    > >
    > > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
    > >
    > > the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it free,
    > > then everyone wins.

    >
    > And how do you propose to backhaul those wireless connections for free?
    >
    > Unless you can answer that, you simply show your inability to understand
    > the technology.


    in the internet age we don't use the archaic term backhaul since we use
    "packets" and wherever this packetized data needs go... it takes the
    quickest route through long established protocols, even if it needs to
    be broken up and reassembled before it reaches the destination.

    ISP's are responsible for the minor traffic increase that compressed
    audio generates, so your question is funny since you don't understand
    modern internet traffic can easily handle all the cell traffic x20
    without any "backhaul" issues.

    welcome to the internet cozmic!



  5. #155
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    >
    >> >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.
    >> >
    >> > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
    >> >
    >> > the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it
    >> > free, then everyone wins.

    >>
    >> And how do you propose to backhaul those wireless connections for
    >> free?
    >>
    >> Unless you can answer that, you simply show your inability to
    >> understand the technology.

    >
    > in the internet age we don't use the archaic term backhaul since we
    > use "packets" and wherever this packetized data needs go... it takes
    > the quickest route through long established protocols, even if it
    > needs to be broken up and reassembled before it reaches the
    > destination.
    >
    > ISP's are responsible for the minor traffic increase that compressed
    > audio generates, so your question is funny since you don't understand
    > modern internet traffic can easily handle all the cell traffic x20
    > without any "backhaul" issues.
    >
    > welcome to the internet cozmic!
    >


    Who said anything about cell traffic? I was speaking of data. Your vision
    of a wireless world would mean that all data would travel without ever
    touching a wire. 802.11x does not support that kind of data transfer.
    Therefore, some sort of wired backhaul network is required to get data from
    A to B.

    You're an idiot if you argue otherwise, moron.

    Welcome to the internet, newbie.



  6. #156
    DTC
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    Oxford wrote:
    > in the internet age we don't use the archaic term backhaul since we use
    > "packets" and wherever this packetized data needs go... it takes the
    > quickest route through long established protocols, even if it needs to
    > be broken up and reassembled before it reaches the destination.


    Sorry, backhaul is a very well used and alive term to describe the
    backbone to access point connection. You obviously don't know much about
    WISP operations.

    > ISP's are responsible for the minor traffic increase that compressed
    > audio generates, so your question is funny since you don't understand
    > modern internet traffic can easily handle all the cell traffic x20
    > without any "backhaul" issues.


    Again, you have avoided the primary question...



  7. #157
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Again, you have avoided the primary question...

    >
    > He's good at that.
    >
    > Hey, Oxford--who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
    > in Steve Jobs's world?


    okay, I give up. She's a total redheaded jewish whore and gave SJ the
    best blow job of his life after Apple came to visit PARC.

    is that the secret you keep hiding from everyone?

    if not, nobody else but you know.

    -



  8. #158
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

    > Who said anything about cell traffic? I was speaking of data.


    good, so you are starting to understand the larger picture.

    > Your vision
    > of a wireless world would mean that all data would travel without ever
    > touching a wire. 802.11x does not support that kind of data transfer.


    ah? what? you clearly don't know much about 802.11, it always touches
    wire unless you are sharing Apple machines point to point like on an
    airplane in an ad-hoc network configuration.

    > Therefore, some sort of wired backhaul network is required to get data from
    > A to B.


    Sure, and it's called the Internet, Cell Companies have very little
    knowledge of it since they try and keep everything on slow, obsolete
    servers.

    3G is horribly slow for this reason alone. 802.11 goes right to the web,
    or ftp, etc. Cell companies can't even fathom this level of
    sophistication and will try and push it through a MS product before it
    reaches the web.

    No thanks! iPhone users will demand the best, keeping Cell/MS products
    out of the mix entirely. As it should be.

    > You're an idiot if you argue otherwise, moron.
    >
    > Welcome to the internet, newbie.


    I've been on the internet since bitnet was all the rage, Cozmic you are
    entirely clueless when you type. Everyone sees right through your
    ignorance on this topic.

    -



  9. #159
    David Friedman
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    In article
    <[email protected]>,
    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Your vision
    > > of a wireless world would mean that all data would travel without ever
    > > touching a wire. 802.11x does not support that kind of data transfer.

    >
    > ah? what? you clearly don't know much about 802.11, it always touches
    > wire unless you are sharing Apple machines point to point like on an
    > airplane in an ad-hoc network configuration.


    I don't think I understand what you mean. 802.11 aka WiFi aka Airport is
    a wireless standard. The router itself may be attached to the net by
    wire, but that connection isn't using 802.11--the part that is using it
    is wireless.

    --
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now



  10. #160
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    >
    >> Who said anything about cell traffic? I was speaking of data.

    >
    > good, so you are starting to understand the larger picture.
    >
    >> Your vision
    >> of a wireless world would mean that all data would travel without
    >> ever touching a wire. 802.11x does not support that kind of data
    >> transfer.

    >
    > ah? what? you clearly don't know much about 802.11, it always touches
    > wire unless you are sharing Apple machines point to point like on an
    > airplane in an ad-hoc network configuration.


    Good- thanks for proving my point, newbie. So, how do you propose to
    make those wired connections free?

    >
    >> Therefore, some sort of wired backhaul network is required to get
    >> data from A to B.

    >
    > Sure, and it's called the Internet, Cell Companies have very little
    > knowledge of it since they try and keep everything on slow, obsolete
    > servers.


    Why do you keep going back to cell companies? But if you insist....do
    you realize that two of the largest cell companies are hauling the great
    majority of your data as you steal thoses wifi connections?

    >
    > 3G is horribly slow for this reason alone. 802.11 goes right to the
    > web, or ftp, etc.



    Huh? Please tell me that you have a better understanding than that.
    That 3G wireless connection goes right to a T1 wired connection, which
    is far superior to the dsl connection you're stealing. And as you say,
    it goes right to the web, or ftp, etc.

    As for the speed, you continue to show your stupidity. The 802.11
    connection does not dictate speed.


    >Cell companies can't even fathom this level of
    > sophistication and will try and push it through a MS product before it
    > reaches the web.


    And yet they haul most of your data.....how interesting.

    >
    > No thanks! iPhone users will demand the best, keeping Cell/MS products
    > out of the mix entirely. As it should be.


    Which is why it will ultimately fail.

    >
    >> You're an idiot if you argue otherwise, moron.
    >>
    >> Welcome to the internet, newbie.

    >
    > I've been on the internet since bitnet was all the rage, Cozmic you
    > are entirely clueless when you type. Everyone sees right through your
    > ignorance on this topic.


    No they don't. We all laugh at your stupidity.


    >
    > -
    >





  11. #161
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    At 14 Nov 2007 15:50:58 -0700 Oxford wrote:

    > okay, I give up. She's a total redheaded jewish whore and gave SJ the
    > best blow job of his life after Apple came to visit PARC.



    Which would be a mildy humorous retort IF you weren't talking about a
    real person, particularly one so distinguished in her field, who has
    probably forgotten more about computing than you or I will ever know...





  12. #162
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    In article <[email protected]>, CozmicDebris
    wrote:

    > >> > the density of 802.11 access points is increasing at an extreme
    > >> > rate and is much faster than 3G, so having a phone that works with
    > >> > data faster than 3G is the future.
    > >>
    > >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.

    > >
    > > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
    > >
    > > the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it free,
    > > then everyone wins.

    >
    > And how do you propose to backhaul those wireless connections for free?
    >
    > Unless you can answer that, you simply show your inability to understand
    > the technology.


    Let's ask more specific questions:

    It is clear that the people who would not be paying for the signal
    benefit. How do the companies who built and maintain the infrastructure
    benefit? Its costs millions to install such systems, especially into
    new areas. It costs millions to maintain and upgrade them as demand
    increases -- and obviously, a free system will make demand increase
    many times over.
    So if no one is paying for anything, where is that money?


    As to the 'trend' -- there has certainly been lots of talk about
    providing wide-area networking, both free and fee-based. Almost all of
    them are either reduced-scale or have disappeared. If it's already
    peaked, where is the 'entire trend' that you are so often remarking
    about? All that most people can see is that everything is the same as
    it was last year and five years ago.



  13. #163
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    Mitch <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:141120071823441462%[email protected]:

    > In article <[email protected]>, CozmicDebris
    > wrote:
    >
    >> >> > the density of 802.11 access points is increasing at an extreme
    >> >> > rate and is much faster than 3G, so having a phone that works
    >> >> > with data faster than 3G is the future.
    >> >>
    >> >> You don't seem to understand back-hauls very much.
    >> >
    >> > and you don't seem to understand distributed wireless very much.
    >> >
    >> > the entire trend is to flaten out the wireless signal, make it
    >> > free, then everyone wins.

    >>
    >> And how do you propose to backhaul those wireless connections for
    >> free?
    >>
    >> Unless you can answer that, you simply show your inability to
    >> understand the technology.

    >
    > Let's ask more specific questions:
    >
    > It is clear that the people who would not be paying for the signal
    > benefit. How do the companies who built and maintain the
    > infrastructure benefit? Its costs millions to install such systems,
    > especially into new areas. It costs millions to maintain and upgrade
    > them as demand increases -- and obviously, a free system will make
    > demand increase many times over.
    > So if no one is paying for anything, where is that money?
    >


    But Oxtard has already answered that- he says those that now pay simply
    keep paying their bills and then provide the service free to the rest of
    the world.


    >
    > As to the 'trend' -- there has certainly been lots of talk about
    > providing wide-area networking, both free and fee-based. Almost all of
    > them are either reduced-scale or have disappeared. If it's already
    > peaked, where is the 'entire trend' that you are so often remarking
    > about? All that most people can see is that everything is the same as
    > it was last year and five years ago.
    >





  14. #164
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    In article
    <[email protected]>,
    Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Who said anything about cell traffic? I was speaking of data.

    >
    > good, so you are starting to understand the larger picture.
    >
    > > Your vision
    > > of a wireless world would mean that all data would travel without ever
    > > touching a wire. 802.11x does not support that kind of data transfer.

    >
    > ah? what? you clearly don't know much about 802.11, it always touches
    > wire unless you are sharing Apple machines point to point like on an
    > airplane in an ad-hoc network configuration.


    Right -- so why are you forever telling everyone that everything is
    going wireless, or that wireless doesn't have to cost anything?
    If it connects to a network, there is a complex infrastructure to
    install, maintain, upgrade at all times.

    > > Therefore, some sort of wired backhaul network is required to get data from
    > > A to B.

    >
    > Sure, and it's called the Internet


    And you are claiming the internet doesn't require wires?
    Or are you claiming that the internet can be lifted whole into wireless?
    Do you understand that the network of the internet is EXPENSIVE? It
    doesn't come FREE -- someone pays for it!

    > Everyone sees right through your
    > ignorance on this topic.


    Ironic. How long have people been telling you this same thing?



  15. #165
    Oxford
    Guest

    Re: Oxtard SPAM

    CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

    > > ah? what? you clearly don't know much about 802.11, it always touches
    > > wire unless you are sharing Apple machines point to point like on an
    > > airplane in an ad-hoc network configuration.

    >
    > Good- thanks for proving my point, newbie. So, how do you propose to
    > make those wired connections free?


    FON is one example, putting your email address as your SSID is another,
    Linspot is another, etc, etc.

    > >> Therefore, some sort of wired backhaul network is required to get
    > >> data from A to B.

    > >
    > > Sure, and it's called the Internet, Cell Companies have very little
    > > knowledge of it since they try and keep everything on slow, obsolete
    > > servers.

    >
    > Why do you keep going back to cell companies? But if you insist....do
    > you realize that two of the largest cell companies are hauling the great
    > majority of your data as you steal thoses wifi connections?


    what? at&t carries less than 1% of my data. and it's not stealing, it's
    sharing. learn the difference.

    > > 3G is horribly slow for this reason alone. 802.11 goes right to the
    > > web, or ftp, etc.

    >
    > Huh? Please tell me that you have a better understanding than that.
    > That 3G wireless connection goes right to a T1 wired connection, which
    > is far superior to the dsl connection you're stealing. And as you say,
    > it goes right to the web, or ftp, etc.


    now way in hell is 3G better than my wireless/802.11 connection. there
    is no comparison when you try and limp along on a cell signal.

    > As for the speed, you continue to show your stupidity. The 802.11
    > connection does not dictate speed.


    sure it does, b, n, g those are all faster than 3G.

    > >Cell companies can't even fathom this level of
    > > sophistication and will try and push it through a MS product before it
    > > reaches the web.

    >
    > And yet they haul most of your data.....how interesting.


    not my data. maybe yours since you don't desire fast connections.

    > > No thanks! iPhone users will demand the best, keeping Cell/MS products
    > > out of the mix entirely. As it should be.

    >
    > Which is why it will ultimately fail.


    nope, the computer industry is far larger, more innovative than the cell
    industry. i give them another 10 years, then poof!

    > >> You're an idiot if you argue otherwise, moron.
    > >>
    > >> Welcome to the internet, newbie.

    > >
    > > I've been on the internet since bitnet was all the rage, Cozmic you
    > > are entirely clueless when you type. Everyone sees right through your
    > > ignorance on this topic.

    >
    > No they don't. We all laugh at your stupidity.


    Ah, but i out wit you at every turn. you just don't have the tech
    background to debate at my level.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast