Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 55 of 55
  1. #46
    Dave M.
    Guest

    Re: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)


    "Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:15:57 GMT, "Dave M." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Thomas G. Marshall"
    >><[email protected]>
    >>wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >>> Klein coughed up:
    >>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:18:06 -0400, "Not Me" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Roger Binns"
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is there any software update available at all that will give me an
    >>>>> option to fully disable the side buttons when the clamshell is
    >>>>>>> closed??????
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nope. This "feature" has been present in LG phones since at least
    >>>>>> the VX4400. I always tell people to call up LG and ask for a fix.
    >>>>>> You won't get one, but at least they will have people, time and
    >>>>>> money taken up with the issue and may actually get a clue one day.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> LG tells folk that the 'feature' is a VZN requirement and to call
    >>>>> VZN.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> VZN's responce is it's a 'feature'
    >>>>
    >>>> That's curious. VZN offers phones by other manufacturers that do not
    >>>> possess this "feature". I got fed up with the rogue side buttons on
    >>>> my VX4400
    >>>
    >>> You mean you weren't smart enough to get fed up with this disfeature
    >>> *within* the 15 day waiting period?
    >>>
    >>> The thing that's astounding is that given that there is something
    >>> pushing
    >>> the right buttons, there really is no way at all to keep it from hopping
    >>> into Manner Mode. None, save pulling the battery out. "Locking" the
    >>> phone does nothing to manner mode. Presumably they want you to be able
    >>> to
    >>> hop in and out of manner mode without the arduous effort of opening the
    >>> clamshell.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>What's the big deal if your phone goes into "manner mode". Heck, in your
    >>pocket you just might enjoy it too much.
    >>
    >>My phone is probably in manner mode 90% of the time out of respect for the
    >>people around me, but seeing your posts and your childlike postures, I can
    >>see why you don't mind if your phone is ringing away in some store,
    >>business setting, movie theatre or whatever. Come to think of it, your
    >>probably the clown talking on his phone in the movie theatre. After all,
    >>it's your phone and you have rights, right???
    >>
    >>Stop crying about your inability to pick the right phone for you and/or
    >>judge it's characteristics like everyone else does within 15 days. Grow
    >>up
    >>and move on Tommy.

    >
    > I guess you haven't understood yet that the side buttons cause the
    > phone to cycle between three states: ringing/vibration/silence. With
    > a random number of pushes of the side button the phone could be in any
    > one of these three states. E.g., you set it to silence before
    > entering the courtroom (church, theater, whatever) and after a while
    > you are surprised by a ringing phone - your phone - which you KNOW you
    > set to silence.
    >
    > Yup, we were too stupid to figure this out right away. It is
    > certainly an unexpected behavior and it takes a while to realize that
    > it's happening.
    >
    > Good luck to you.
    >
    > Klein


    With all due respect, I don't believe you've either read the directions or
    have experimented with the phone, if you indeed own the VX LG 6100. The side
    buttons do not do what you stated, ie. cycle between 3 states of
    ringing/vibration/ & silence when the cover is closed. So, your conclusion
    of randomly being in one of those three states is in error.

    If you do not lock your keys (by pressing # key for a couple seconds) there
    are only 3 keys which could get depressed in your pocket to cause an
    undesired result. One which is innocuous enough is, you might take a photo
    of your pocket, which with no light, of course doesn't amount to much. The
    second result , is that your phone could be placed into "driving mode" by
    the depression of the button on the lower left side of the phone. Normally,
    especially if you're in an area that you need to be quiet, that is not
    desirable as you'll hear a voice saying "Call from..."

    Now, If you lock your keys before putting the phone in your pocket, then
    your phone cannot/will not go into "driving mode" nor will it take a photo
    by the depression of the keys mentioned. The only thing that could happen
    w/ the phone in "locked mode" while in your pocket, is that the upper key
    could get depressed switching the phone between "manner mode" & "normal
    mode", which is whatever ring level you had set your phone to. If you
    wanted to insure silence, you could set your ring level to "silent" and then
    you'd never hear anything coming from your pocket. Your phone could then
    toggle from "silent" to "manner mode" (which is merely vibrating). To be
    real safe in a "church or court mode" is you could simply turn your phone
    off, which is what I do. Most people aren't inclined to want to take a
    call in Church or in Court.

    I believe most people don't keep their phones in the pocket of a tight pare
    of jeans. If they do, the above items and/or suggestions would be things to
    consider. Although I would seldom do it, I could have the phone in the
    pocket of a loose fitting pair of pants, ie. slacks, suit pants, etc.. and
    there would be no likelihood of the buttons getting depressed in my pocket.
    However, most of the time, like many people, I just keep it on my belt.
    However, I could assure you that if I were placing my phone in a tight
    pants pockets on a regular basis, I'd have noticed the above results many
    times in a 15 day period. I'd have to have my head in the sand not to
    notice it...

    In the meantime, I'm enjoying my VX LG 6100 and I hope your enjoying yours.





    See More: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)




  2. #47
    Remove This
    Guest

    Re: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)






    >> and got a Samsung A670 instead. When the 670 is closed and
    >> not ringing, the side buttons do nothing at all.


    Pressing and holding the left button lights the front clock display.
    Pressing and holding the right button, turns on the camera. Another
    press takes a picture. All with the clamshell closed, on my A670

    --
    I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "




  3. #48
    Thomas G. Marshall
    Guest

    Re: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    Klein coughed up:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:15:57 GMT, "Dave M." <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> message news:[email protected]
    >>> Klein coughed up:
    >>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:18:06 -0400, "Not Me" <[email protected]>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Roger Binns"
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Is there any software update available at all that will give me
    >>>>>>> an
    >>>>> option to fully disable the side buttons when the clamshell is
    >>>>>>> closed??????
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nope. This "feature" has been present in LG phones since at
    >>>>>> least the VX4400. I always tell people to call up LG and ask for
    >>>>>> a fix. You won't get one, but at least they will have people,
    >>>>>> time and money taken up with the issue and may actually get a
    >>>>>> clue one day.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> LG tells folk that the 'feature' is a VZN requirement and to call
    >>>>> VZN.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> VZN's responce is it's a 'feature'
    >>>>
    >>>> That's curious. VZN offers phones by other manufacturers that do
    >>>> not possess this "feature". I got fed up with the rogue side
    >>>> buttons on my VX4400
    >>>
    >>> You mean you weren't smart enough to get fed up with this disfeature
    >>> *within* the 15 day waiting period?
    >>>
    >>> The thing that's astounding is that given that there is something
    >>> pushing the right buttons, there really is no way at all to keep it
    >>> from hopping into Manner Mode. None, save pulling the battery out.
    >>> "Locking" the phone does nothing to manner mode. Presumably they
    >>> want you to be able to hop in and out of manner mode without the
    >>> arduous effort of opening the clamshell.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> What's the big deal if your phone goes into "manner mode". Heck, in
    >> your pocket you just might enjoy it too much.
    >>
    >> My phone is probably in manner mode 90% of the time out of respect
    >> for the people around me, but seeing your posts and your childlike
    >> postures, I can see why you don't mind if your phone is ringing away
    >> in some store, business setting, movie theatre or whatever. Come
    >> to think of it, your probably the clown talking on his phone in the
    >> movie theatre. After all, it's your phone and you have rights,
    >> right???
    >>
    >> Stop crying about your inability to pick the right phone for you
    >> and/or judge it's characteristics like everyone else does within 15
    >> days. Grow up and move on Tommy.

    >
    > I guess you haven't understood yet that the side buttons cause the
    > phone to cycle between three states: ringing/vibration/silence. With
    > a random number of pushes of the side button the phone could be in any
    > one of these three states. E.g., you set it to silence before
    > entering the courtroom (church, theater, whatever) and after a while
    > you are surprised by a ringing phone - your phone - which you KNOW you
    > set to silence.
    >
    > Yup, we were too stupid to figure this out right away. It is
    > certainly an unexpected behavior and it takes a while to realize that
    > it's happening.
    >
    > Good luck to you.
    >
    > Klein



    It should be fairly clear by now that "Dave M." is an unthinking troll. You
    might want to consider plonking him outright. His childish behavior and
    limited arguing skills are an enormous waste of time. But in general my
    killfiles expire quickly, since even folks like Mr. Dave M. here grow up
    eventually.


    --
    "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
    Two weeks from everywhere!"





  4. #49
    Not Me
    Guest

    Re: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)


    "Klein"
    | >|
    | >| Nope. This "feature" has been present in LG phones since at least the
    | >VX4400.
    | >| I always tell people to call up LG and ask for a fix. You won't get
    one,
    | >| but at least they will have people, time and money taken up with the
    issue
    | >| and may actually get a clue one day.
    | >
    | >LG tells folk that the 'feature' is a VZN requirement and to call VZN.
    | >
    | >VZN's responce is it's a 'feature'
    |
    | That's curious. VZN offers phones by other manufacturers that do not
    | possess this "feature". I got fed up with the rogue side buttons on
    | my VX4400 and got a Samsung A670 instead. When the 670 is closed and
    | not ringing, the side buttons do nothing at all. When closed and
    | ringing it will silence the phone (for that call attempt only) but it
    | will not change the mode to/from ringing/vibration/silence like the
    | VX4400 does. Sounds like the LG folks were just dodging you.

    It's the result of a design/user interface *mistake* the process is called
    CYA. My guess is the 'feature' is hard coded into phone and there are far
    too many of the specific chips in stock to make a change at this point.





  5. #50
    John Henderson
    Guest

    Re: DO NOT BUY LG CELL PHONES!!!!!-----WAS: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    Not Me wrote:

    > The design/manufacturing limits (as in $$) do not allow the
    > use of sufficiently tight tolerances that RSSI would be
    > anything except a very rough indication. Added to that are
    > the variations in the manufacturing process such as which
    > plant produced the various handsets.
    > This is from direct observation of the manufacturing process.


    How rough? Are you saying that a consistently reapeatable 12-16
    dBm attenuation when held against the head might be only half
    that figure? If so, that's still a significant attenuation.

    In any case, I have more faith than that in the 12-16 dBm
    figure, for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, I regularly use this phone for automatically logged
    netmonitoring in a vehicle. I see a gradual reduction when
    moving away from a BTS (other things being equal). There is no
    sudden drop of this magnitude for no good reason.

    Secondly, the vehicle is fitted with an external antenna,
    allowing me to use an alternative cellular device on that same
    antenna. And the absolute dBm figures in the same
    circumstances are always very close to being the same. Have I
    got two out-of-tolerence receivers with exactly the same bias?
    I don't believe that for a moment. One is a Siemens S55
    handset, and the other is a Wavecom Fastrack 1206b modem.

    Thirdly, these RSSI figures are relied on by the network to
    manage handovers. So the relativity between serving cell
    strength measurements and neighbours must be fairly accurate -
    nothing like the inaccuracies you're claiming.

    > Again what's the standard?


    GSM 04.08, 04.22, 05.05, 05.08, 11.10 among others cover radio
    link and handset performance aspects.

    > Is it calibrated? If so how and against what? Having over
    > seen a standards lab I have very serious questions about
    > claims based on handset RSSI especially when they are reported
    > as absolutes.


    I did not quote any absolute RSSI figures, only _relative_
    measurements.

    > Assigned channel, dynamic power adjustments, multi-path,
    > variations in the link budget for the various transmitters
    > used including something a simple as a hand off to another
    > tower.


    There are no handovers or changes in serving cell involved in
    the measurements I gave. Apart from reading signal strength,
    my software also monitors MCC, MNC, LAC and cell ID. None of
    these changed.

    > FWIW the real world cell site conditioning process
    > allows great variation in performance even for transmitters
    > sharing an antenna. This variance is increased when the use
    > of multiple antennas are factored into the equation. As to
    > the effects of the hand: while there is some direct
    > attenuation my experience is that the changes in the Q of the
    > antenna and detuning of the matching elements have a greater
    > effect on the signal.


    A greater effect that what? All I'm claiming is that closeness
    to the body results in significant attenuation.

    > Again the simple orientation of the handset in relation to the
    > cell site has a more demonstrable effect. Check the actual
    > radiation pattern of a handset. The patters from two units
    > pulled in sequence (S/N are one number apart) from the
    > production line have great variations. By whatever standard
    > of measurement they are clearly, not single-point spherical
    > radiators and since the orientation is not controlled these
    > will have a much greater impact on received signal than
    > bio-attenuation.


    OK, I've got a small "external" antenna with suction cups
    designed for use in a vehicle. It's flexible plastic, probably
    a phased array, and about the size of a handset. When I hookup
    the Wavecom modem and hold the antenna in my hand against my
    ear, I see a 14-20 dBm attenuation. This is done with the
    antenna facing the serving cell (I have its MCC, MNC, LAC and
    CI remember, and I know exactly where it is), and the drop is
    in comparison with the antenna held about a half-metre away in
    the same direction. Are you trying to tell me I've got two
    faulty devices?

    > You might find it interesting to know that the effects of the
    > body on emissions is much greater on the handset to cell site
    > link than the reverse. This has been explained as near field
    > effects. As near field attenuation is based on the proximity
    > of the body to the transmitting antenna it clearly
    > has little effect on the RSSI There are numerous studies,
    > many by the DOD which while no longer classified are not
    > widely published.
    > The key studies that come to mind that may be more readly
    > accessed are those done by Motorola's Balzano as they are now
    > part of records of the various FDA hearings.
    >
    > BTW his studies were preformed initially with cadaver heads
    > and later with analog equivalents. The demonstrations I
    > observed were performed with the analog heads and while there
    > were some discernable attention they were
    > nowhere near 12-16 db for either transmit or received signal
    > levels. As I said before handset transmitted signal level
    > comparison were more profoundly effected (still low
    > regardless) but again in the near field. ( a few
    > centimeters @ 800 MHz) Attenuation beyond that was
    > negligible.
    >
    > (OT -- he tells a great story about a security guard at his
    > lab who was told
    > emphatically not to open a specific shipment. Being curious
    > and having the right to open all boxes she opened the box
    > regardless ... with the result that she now opens *no* boxes
    > for inspection)


    > It's a lot more complicated that simple fact of the moisture
    > content.


    As far as I can see, no-one's denying that.

    > As example (an over simplification) the losses due
    > to long needle pine trees are greater than the losses do to
    > sort needle pine. Oak trees likewise vary as a function of
    > the species i.e, live oak have a greater effect than pin oak
    > for a give size of tree even though the physical size of the
    > leaves are similar. This from direct observation (proof of
    > performance certification) of live systems.


    If the effects of leaves can be that subtle, why can't the
    presence or absence of a head have a significant effect?
    That's a rhethorical question, by the way, because heads and
    hands clearly do have such an effect.

    John



  6. #51
    Thomas G. Marshall
    Guest

    Re: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    Not Me coughed up:

    ....[rip]...

    > It's the result of a design/user interface *mistake* the process is
    > called CYA. My guess is the 'feature' is hard coded into phone and
    > there are far too many of the specific chips in stock to make a
    > change at this point.



    That seems likely. I thought I'd update with the latest email from Verizon:

    From Verizon:
    After checking with are Technical Support
    Team there is no fix for this. The phone has
    a clam shell design which should prevent
    buttons from being pressed.

    {author slaps forehead, thumbs through ebay for sniper rifle}

    If for some reason they are talking about the buttons inside the clamshell,
    I'm speachless, since that was never the point.

    If they are talking about the buttons on the side of the phone, then they
    seem to be in total agreement with us.


    --
    I've seen this a few times--Don't make this mistake:

    Dwight: "This thing is wildly available."
    Smedly: "Did you mean wildly, or /widely/ ?"
    Dwight: "Both!", said while nodding emphatically.

    Dwight was exposed to have made a grammatical
    error and tries to cover it up by thinking
    fast. This is so painfully obvious that he
    only succeeds in looking worse.





  7. #52
    Not Me
    Guest

    Re: DO NOT BUY LG CELL PHONES!!!!!-----WAS: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    "John Henderson"

    first of all visit http://www.kingfisher.com.au/appnotes/A01.htm for a
    clarification of dBm vs. db the terms are not interchangeable.

    | > The design/manufacturing limits (as in $$) do not allow the
    | > use of sufficiently tight tolerances that RSSI would be
    | > anything except a very rough indication. Added to that are
    | > the variations in the manufacturing process such as which
    | > plant produced the various handsets.
    | > This is from direct observation of the manufacturing process.
    |
    | How rough? Are you saying that a consistently repeatable 12-16
    | dBm attenuation when held against the head might be only half
    | that figure? If so, that's still a significant attenuation.
    |
    | In any case, I have more faith than that in the 12-16 dBm
    | figure, for a number of reasons.

    <snip>

    | Thirdly, these RSSI figures are relied on by the network to
    | manage handovers. So the relativity between serving cell
    | strength measurements and neighbors must be fairly accurate -
    | nothing like the inaccuracies you're claiming.

    The histeresis (spl?) inherent in the process do not require absolutes and
    are initially set under an educated best guess that is refined by real world
    observations. FWIW the setting is more for load balancing that performance
    issues.

    | > Again what's the standard?
    |
    | GSM 04.08, 04.22, 05.05, 05.08, 11.10 among others cover radio
    | link and handset performance aspects.

    I'm not personally familiar with those specific standards but did have a
    hand in drafting the EIA/TIA standards use in the USA including those used
    by the CTIA handset certification process. Regardless look into the process
    involved in calibration of lab/field grade test equipment. There is *no*
    way that any handset under current manufacture process can be made to
    conform to the required performance standards to be remotely useful for the
    test results you are citing. None of the handset standards even pretend to
    be at the level required for accurate testing. (Hint even the bench level
    service equipment from IFR cost $30K+ how can a handset delivered for less
    than $300 retail be expected to perform at that level.)

    Not unlike the guy teeing off in the dark. His buddy comments 'sounds like
    a slice' an opinion likely based on experience but nothing that would hold
    up at the 19th Tee much less scientific review.

    | > Is it calibrated? If so how and against what? Having over
    | > seen a standards lab I have very serious questions about
    | > claims based on handset RSSI especially when they are reported
    | > as absolutes.
    |
    | I did not quote any absolute RSSI figures, only _relative_
    | measurements.

    See the qualification at the top of this post. Likeiwise the input two
    paragraphs above.

    | > Assigned channel, dynamic power adjustments, multi-path,
    | > variations in the link budget for the various transmitters
    | > used including something a simple as a hand off to another
    | > tower.
    |
    | There are no handovers or changes in serving cell involved in
    | the measurements I gave. Apart from reading signal strength,
    | my software also monitors MCC, MNC, LAC and cell ID. None of
    | these changed.

    | > FWIW the real world cell site conditioning process
    | > allows great variation in performance even for transmitters
    | > sharing an antenna. This variance is increased when the use
    | > of multiple antennas are factored into the equation. As to
    | > the effects of the hand: while there is some direct
    | > attenuation my experience is that the changes in the Q of the
    | > antenna and detuning of the matching elements have a greater
    | > effect on the signal.
    |
    | A greater effect that what? All I'm claiming is that closeness
    | to the body results in significant attenuation.

    I'm cited test results that have been peer reviewed and published in
    scientific journals. The levels you claim are not typical and have not
    reproduced in either lab environments or in real world situation under
    properly controlled conditions.

    | > Again the simple orientation of the handset in relation to the
    | > cell site has a more demonstrable effect. Check the actual
    | > radiation pattern of a handset. The patters from two units
    | > pulled in sequence (S/N are one number apart) from the
    | > production line have great variations. By whatever standard
    | > of measurement they are clearly, not single-point spherical
    | > radiators and since the orientation is not controlled these
    | > will have a much greater impact on received signal than
    | > bio-attenuation.
    |
    | OK, I've got a small "external" antenna with suction cups
    | designed for use in a vehicle. It's flexible plastic, probably
    | a phased array, and about the size of a handset. When I hookup
    | the Wavecom modem and hold the antenna in my hand against my
    | ear, I see a 14-20 dBm attenuation. This is done with the
    | antenna facing the serving cell (I have its MCC, MNC, LAC and
    | CI remember, and I know exactly where it is), and the drop is
    | in comparison with the antenna held about a half-meter away in
    | the same direction. Are you trying to tell me I've got two
    | faulty devices?

    I'm telling you that there are *far* to many uncontrolled variables in the
    system dynamics of the test protocols you are employing. At one time the
    accepted 'common' knowledge was that CDMA systems were immune to IM
    products. This was true as far as it went but the real world hard facts is
    that while CDMA is highly immune to CDMA IM products CDMA is *not* immune to
    IM products from other modulation protocols. My point here is not to
    discuss the relative performance of IM in various protocols but to
    illustrate that without properly controlled experiments the resultant data
    and conclusions are suspect to the point of being useless. Again my input
    on these comes from personal observations of both lab experiments and real
    field problems.

    | > You might find it interesting to know that the effects of the
    | > body on emissions is much greater on the handset to cell site
    | > link than the reverse. This has been explained as near field
    | > effects. As near field attenuation is based on the proximity
    | > of the body to the transmitting antenna it clearly
    | > has little effect on the RSSI There are numerous studies,
    | > many by the DOD which while no longer classified are not
    | > widely published.
    | > The key studies that come to mind that may be more readly
    | > accessed are those done by Motorola's Balzano as they are now
    | > part of records of the various FDA hearings.
    | >
    | > BTW his studies were preformed initially with cadaver heads
    | > and later with analog equivalents. The demonstrations I
    | > observed were performed with the analog heads and while there
    | > were some discernable attention they were
    | > nowhere near 12-16 db for either transmit or received signal
    | > levels. As I said before handset transmitted signal level
    | > comparison were more profoundly effected (still low
    | > regardless) but again in the near field. ( a few
    | > centimeters @ 800 MHz) Attenuation beyond that was
    | > negligible.
    | >
    | > (OT -- he tells a great story about a security guard at his
    | > lab who was told
    | > emphatically not to open a specific shipment. Being curious
    | > and having the right to open all boxes she opened the box
    | > regardless ... with the result that she now opens *no* boxes
    | > for inspection)
    |
    | > It's a lot more complicated that simple fact of the moisture
    | > content.
    |
    | As far as I can see, no-one's denying that.
    |
    | > As example (an over simplification) the losses due
    | > to long needle pine trees are greater than the losses do to
    | > sort needle pine. Oak trees likewise vary as a function of
    | > the species i.e, live oak have a greater effect than pin oak
    | > for a give size of tree even though the physical size of the
    | > leaves are similar. This from direct observation (proof of
    | > performance certification) of live systems.
    |
    | If the effects of leaves can be that subtle, why can't the
    | presence or absence of a head have a significant effect?
    | That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because heads and
    | hands clearly do have such an effect.

    For the same reason that a black out shade has greater attenuation of light
    than window glass. They are two entirely different animals.

    Again from controlled, independently verified, peer reviewed test the data
    does not support your assumptions on the bio-absorption/attenuation.

    Remember one of the truisms for any experiment is that the methodologies
    used to make the observations invariably have impact on the observations and
    the quality of the data resulting. The better the test equipment and test
    procedures the higher the quality of the resultant data. In order to obtain
    repeatable and useful data you must have a complete understanding of what is
    being tested, the protocols employed and test equipment and the limits
    inherent in each.

    Quite candidly if a $300 to $1000 handset and an OTS antenna can produce the
    qualified results you cite why did the industry spend millions on the
    process of revalidating data that had been expensively produced by folk with
    very deep pockets i.e. the DOD, NIH, etc.?






  8. #53
    Ben Skversky
    Guest

    Re: DO NOT BUY LG CELL PHONES!!!!!-----WAS: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    I agree. I have the 6100 too. I prefer LG cell phones. My wife has the 4400
    & my grandson has the 4500.

    "Dave M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > If you don't like it, don't buy it... no big deal. Verizon gives everyone
    > a 15-day trial period.
    >
    > I personally like the LG-VX 6100. I use the plastic holder that comes
    > with it and fasten it to my belt. Occasionally I'll put it in a walking
    > shorts type pocket w/ no problems. My wife puts hers in her purse w/ no
    > problems. Overall I think the LG's are great. If there was something I
    > thought was better, I'd buy it. Good luck w/ your choice...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Thomas G. Marshall"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Roger Binns coughed up:
    >>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> message news:[email protected]
    >>>> Is there any software update available at all that will give me an
    >>>> option to fully disable the side buttons when the clamshell is
    >>>> closed??????
    >>>
    >>> Nope. This "feature" has been present in LG phones since at least
    >>> the VX4400. I always tell people to call up LG and ask for a fix. You
    >>> won't get
    >>> one, but at least they will have people, time and money taken up with
    >>> the
    >>> issue and may actually get a clue one day.
    >>>
    >>> That said, I have only had it happen to me once (I always keep my
    >>> phone in my pocket). Other people with LG phones seem to have it *A
    >>> LOT*.
    >>>
    >>> Roger

    >>
    >> I've already emailed both LG and Verizon.
    >>
    >> LG responded quickly with "there is no way we can provide a software fix
    >> for this, since it is up to verizon to do so."
    >>
    >> Verizon responded with useless bull**** about how to press the keys to
    >> activate it (something I already understood), and followed with "there is
    >> no software update to disable this."
    >>
    >> I am left with the following advice to everyone. DO NOT BUY LG.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
    >>
    >>

    >
    >






  9. #54
    Ben Skversky
    Guest

    Re: Does not know about top-posting since 1990????-----WAS: DO NOT BUY LG CELL PHONES!!!!!-----WAS: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    Great post, Dave.

    "Dave M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Hypocritical morons like you are fun to laugh at. You print your titles
    > of your posts in CAPS, a well know faux pax, but oh yes, it's our little
    > Tommy Marshall. And you change the reply of everyone you want to reply to
    > with "coughed-up"; oh yes, another nice little polite mannerism. And
    > yet you're complaining that Mij Adyaw is "top posting". hahaha, what a
    > little punk..
    >
    > And now you don't like your phone, after Verizon gave you 15 days to try
    > it out, so you want to pout like a little baby. hahahaha I guess when
    > you buy a car that has a problem, you cuss out the world; hit a bad golf
    > shot, throw your clubs... yeah, we've seen your type. Simply stated,
    > your pathetic.... Get a life!
    >
    >
    > "Thomas G. Marshall"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Mij Adyaw coughed up:
    >>> Interesting. I have been posting on usenet since 1990 and did not
    >>> know about the top posting.

    >>
    >> Thomas Marshall Spewed:
    >> 1. how on earth is that possible?
    >>
    >> 2. does this current top post mean that you don't care to follow my
    >> request?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> The RF attenuation is primarily caused by
    >>> the water in the body.
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> -mij
    >>>
    >>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> message news:[email protected]
    >>>> Mij Adyaw coughed up:
    >>>>> Physical proximity of the phone antenna to your body causes the
    >>>>> phone to loose signal. The body is a very good attenuator of RF
    >>>>> signals. If you do not believe this, in a low signal area, note the
    >>>>> reading on the phone's signal meter and then hold your hand against
    >>>>> the antenna. You will notice that the signal meter will drop a bar
    >>>>> or two. When the phone is on your belt it is not in direct contact
    >>>>> with your body, the signal is not attenuated as much a if the phone
    >>>>> is in your pants pocket.
    >>>>
    >>>> Please STOP top posting after others have bottom posted!!! It makes
    >>>> a mess of the messages and is VERY RUDE!!!
    >>>>
    >>>> Regarding your reply: Is the attenuation directly related to the
    >>>> water in the body? Curious.
    >>>>
    >>>> In any case, I've not missed calls before with [moto] cell phones in
    >>>> my pocket---at least no one, particularly my wife, have complained
    >>>> about not getting to me. But with this LG, I *do* miss the call
    >>>> when it's vibrating. Perhaps the ring volume is alterable as well by
    >>>> the side buttons with the clamshell closed, which could definitely
    >>>> cause missed calls, but I'll have to experiment with that.
    >>>>
    >>>> And the point is moot: I think a cell phone stuck on the belt looks
    >>>> silly---I /want/ the thing in my pocket.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Not Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>> Don't put the phone in your pants pocket!!! The phones were not
    >>>>>>> designed to be carried in your pants pocket. It reduces the RF
    >>>>>>> signal and you will miss incoming calls. Buy a holster for the
    >>>>>>> phone and carry it on your belt. Problem solved very easily.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Just how great is the RF attenuation from resting in my pocket vs.
    >>>>>> that on the side of the belt? Same applies to the phone in my
    >>>>>> wife's purse or in my
    >>>>>> brief case covered by car keys and whatever other 'stuff' might be
    >>>>>> in there
    >>>>>> as well?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
    >>>> Two weeks from everywhere!"

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> "So I just, uh... I just cut them up like regular chickens?"
    >> "Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."
    >>
    >>

    >
    >






  10. #55
    Thomas G. Marshall
    Guest

    Re: Does not know about top-posting since 1990????-----WAS: DO NOT BUY LG CELL PHONES!!!!!-----WAS: LG VX6100 switches to "Manner Mode" in my pocket(!!)

    Ben Skversky coughed up:
    > Great post, Dave.



    Ben, I have nothing against you. I welcome anyone disagreeing with me on
    the merits of the LG series. There seem to be several here who do not like
    it, and several others here who do.

    But don't lower yourself by complimenting this "dave m." idiot on his
    childish posts. I killfiled him outright for this.

    I wasn't complaining about anyone top-posting /as such/. I've been very
    clear about this. What I'm complaining about is that when you top post over
    a series of replies that have already been bottom posted you rudely make a
    mess of the message.

    He refuses to answer this point, because he realizes that he has no
    argument. This is troll-like behavior. It is quickly recognizable.

    I answered Sentinel's post by explaining how top-posting is a perfect
    technique for two party situations like email, but for venues where there
    are multiple people engaging in interleaved conversations, top-posting over
    existing bottom and interleaved quotes quickly makes the message impossible
    to follow.

    I've also pointed out how the opinion throughout the web is far more
    anti-top-posting than I've ever been. Do a quick googling on the subject
    and you'll see page after page of reasons why people hate top-posting in
    general. I am not one of them. I only see top-posting as rude when it is
    done over existing bottom or interleaved posted messages.

    Sentinel bowed out of this conversation by asking google to pull the record
    of his post. For whatever his reasons were, that seems fair enough to me.

    This "Dave M." troll you compliment, however, gives no answer but to bomb
    throw with things like "pathetic" and "little tommy marshall".

    Yes, I posted with a subject all in caps. That is considered rude by some,
    but do a quick google search and you'll discover that to be nothing compared
    to the top-posting issue. And no one but "Dave M." said anything about this
    until after I started explaining the top-posting complaint. And yes, I use
    a satirical quoting style tag of "coughed up". /That/ is /not/ something I
    particularly think is unusually rude, but again, he brings it only because
    he cannot argue against my claim concerning the top-posting. You will see
    many such quoting styles in usenet. "spewed forth" is another very common
    one. It doesn't bring me nor anyone else to throw insults.

    I invite either of you to attempt to extol the virtues of top-posting in one
    of the news admin groups. Actually, I dare "dave m." to. And remember,
    unlike most I have not been blasting top-posting all by itself. Or at the
    very least, read Jafo's quote in this thread.

    Now regarding the reason that I posted against LG phones in the first place.

    This "Dave M." fool (teenager?) starts off with a direct set of unprovoked
    insults, which I returned in kind. Regardless of the fact that my
    complaints are hardly unique, he likes to simply holler. And oh, this
    laughable "little tommy marshall" crap.

    I've designed very many large and expensive software and hardware
    combination systems for over 20 years. I've either hired directly or been
    part of the decision tree responsible for bringing in design engineers.
    Putting sensitive protruding buttons on the side of a flip phone that can
    switch a phone from ringing to buzzing with the clamshell closed is simply a
    design mistake. Other flip phones that I've either had or seen will disable
    such features, or require a series of presses, or will (most commonly) have
    the buttons recessed or stiffer to press so that mere movement in a pants or
    coat pocket does not activate them.

    So this childish and obviously laughable "Dave M." rants along, as if merely
    throwing insults wins arguments? And he'll be sure to obfuscate the issues.
    I'll summarize the two that he just keeps glossing over: 1. that it is
    difficult to tell if a phone bothers you in the first 15 days of using it
    when the problem is unpredictably sporadic. He's already directly insulted
    someone else here over that, and he ignores all the others complaining about
    the same thing. 2. top-posting over messages already bottom and interleave
    posted makes a mess of the message and makes it very hard to reply to,
    particularly when the mix of posting techniques continues for a while.

    Take care,

    Thomas








    >
    > "Dave M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Hypocritical morons like you are fun to laugh at. You print your
    >> titles of your posts in CAPS, a well know faux pax, but oh yes, it's our
    >> little Tommy Marshall. And you change the reply of
    >> everyone you want to reply to with "coughed-up"; oh yes, another
    >> nice little polite mannerism. And yet you're complaining that Mij
    >> Adyaw is "top posting". hahaha, what a little punk..
    >>
    >> And now you don't like your phone, after Verizon gave you 15 days to
    >> try it out, so you want to pout like a little baby. hahahaha I
    >> guess when you buy a car that has a problem, you cuss out the world;
    >> hit a bad golf shot, throw your clubs... yeah, we've seen your type.
    >> Simply stated, your pathetic.... Get a life!
    >>
    >>
    >> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> message news:[email protected]
    >>> Mij Adyaw coughed up:
    >>>> Interesting. I have been posting on usenet since 1990 and did not
    >>>> know about the top posting.
    >>>
    >>> Thomas Marshall Spewed:
    >>> 1. how on earth is that possible?
    >>>
    >>> 2. does this current top post mean that you don't care to follow my
    >>> request?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> The RF attenuation is primarily caused by
    >>>> the water in the body.
    >>>> Regards,
    >>>>
    >>>> -mij
    >>>>
    >>>> "Thomas G. Marshall"
    >>>> <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>>> message news:[email protected]
    >>>>> Mij Adyaw coughed up:
    >>>>>> Physical proximity of the phone antenna to your body causes the
    >>>>>> phone to loose signal. The body is a very good attenuator of RF
    >>>>>> signals. If you do not believe this, in a low signal area, note
    >>>>>> the reading on the phone's signal meter and then hold your hand
    >>>>>> against the antenna. You will notice that the signal meter will
    >>>>>> drop a bar or two. When the phone is on your belt it is not in
    >>>>>> direct contact with your body, the signal is not attenuated as
    >>>>>> much a if the phone is in your pants pocket.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Please STOP top posting after others have bottom posted!!! It
    >>>>> makes a mess of the messages and is VERY RUDE!!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Regarding your reply: Is the attenuation directly related to the
    >>>>> water in the body? Curious.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In any case, I've not missed calls before with [moto] cell phones
    >>>>> in my pocket---at least no one, particularly my wife, have
    >>>>> complained about not getting to me. But with this LG, I *do*
    >>>>> miss the call when it's vibrating. Perhaps the ring volume is
    >>>>> alterable as well by the side buttons with the clamshell closed,
    >>>>> which could definitely cause missed calls, but I'll have to
    >>>>> experiment with that. And the point is moot: I think a cell phone
    >>>>> stuck on the belt
    >>>>> looks silly---I /want/ the thing in my pocket.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Not Me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:[email protected]
    >>>>>>>> Don't put the phone in your pants pocket!!! The phones were not
    >>>>>>>> designed to be carried in your pants pocket. It reduces the RF
    >>>>>>>> signal and you will miss incoming calls. Buy a holster for the
    >>>>>>>> phone and carry it on your belt. Problem solved very easily.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Just how great is the RF attenuation from resting in my pocket
    >>>>>>> vs. that on the side of the belt? Same applies to the phone in
    >>>>>>> my wife's purse or in my
    >>>>>>> brief case covered by car keys and whatever other 'stuff' might
    >>>>>>> be in there
    >>>>>>> as well?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> "Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
    >>>>> Two weeks from everywhere!"
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> "So I just, uh... I just cut them up like regular chickens?"
    >>> "Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."




    --
    Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
    reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
    arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
    Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
    itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234