Wall Street Journal, starting to catch my drift

[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > yes, peter but the FCC isn't going to spend money on "testing rules"...
> > in america it doesn't work that way. freedom is much more important than
> > "rules", the FCC has 4 part time people for the entire US that test this
> > stuff, so rules don't matter with the overriding goal is to change
> > worldwide society.
>
> The FCC will come calling when someone complains a base station is
> pumping out excessive power.

no they won't, you don't understand america life. the FCC will only come
calling if you build a 300 foot tower and forget to put a blinking red
light on top. for something like WiFi, they could careless.

> > > Directional antennas are useless for anyone hoping to broadcast
> > > bandwidth for miles so you're limited to 1 watt EIRP which certainly
> > > won't go for miles, or even one mile.
> > >
> > > No amount of learning about antennas will fix that.
> >
> > but again, the FCC isn't going to be checking for this, only the CELL
> > companies... once they are being strapped for cash, from being SUCKED
> > dry by wifi will it happen, so it's a moot point at least in a free
> > country.
> >
> > put up all the 802.11 wireless antennas you want, you will NOT be
> > harassed.
> >
> > mine is called "iPhone" and reaches around 800 feet, for free!
>
> Interesting. So you advocate breaking the law?

no law that i know about, so i'd be seen as innocent from a judge.

> The law is there for a purpose which is to minimise interference between
> users' networks. Your "iPhone" a/p monopolises one channel within a half
> mile radius. If everyone in an apartment block or suburbia adopted the
> same approach wifi would slow to a crawl or be unuseable.

untrue, you can still have basestations on the same channel and they'll
work just fine.

---

› See More: Wall Street Journal, starting to catch my drift

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

> Did you figure out "shill" yet?
>
> No? Well do keep trying.

you just don't want to admit i'm right.

you'll see what i'm saying in a few years.

In article <[email protected]>,
none <[email protected]> wrote:

> no they won't, you don't understand america life. the FCC will only come
> calling if you build a 300 foot tower and forget to put a blinking red
> light on top. for something like WiFi, they could careless.
>
Unless you somehow encroach on one of the governments frequencies,
and even then it usually has to be Fed frequency. Look at CB for
instance or even most pirate AMs or FMs.

"none" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
>> > patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
>> > years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.
>> >
>> > nice try though!
>>
>> No patent that is specific enough to be enforceable is not so specific
>> that you can't find a way around it.
>
> but apple won't allow for that, it's something you are overlooking.
>
> show me someone that sells a click wheel like apple's ipod, bet you
> can't.

um, you mean like on the lg vx8550?

none wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Did you figure out "shill" yet?
>>
>>No? Well do keep trying.
>
>
> you'll see what i'm saying in a few years.


Not hardly. You are absolutely clueless, even for a shill.

Daniel Packman <[email protected]> wrote
> none <[email protected]> wrote

>> or are you starting to understand that apple
>> will control the entire cell industry in 10 years?

> It seems likely that the iphone has redefined the user interface,
> but if Apple follows its past history, it might dominate the high
> end, but won't be interested in low margin entry level units.

Thats arguable with the ipod Shuffle, but even that hasnt seen Apple
control the entire media player industry, and it never will either.

"ed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> No patent that is specific enough to be enforceable is not so specific
> >> that you can't find a way around it.
> >
> > but apple won't allow for that, it's something you are overlooking.
> >
> > show me someone that sells a click wheel like apple's ipod, bet you
> > can't.
>
> um, you mean like on the lg vx8550?

no ed, i meant one that works like the iPod click wheel which is legally
impossible for another 12 years or so. gosh you are an idiot!

http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/LG-V...-review-r_1776.
html

"The only Touch-Sensitive buttons are for the Left & Right Soft Keys,
Speakerphone, and Clear."

Kurt Ullman <[email protected]> wrote:

> > no they won't, you don't understand america life. the FCC will only come
> > calling if you build a 300 foot tower and forget to put a blinking red
> > light on top. for something like WiFi, they could careless.
> >
> Unless you somehow encroach on one of the governments frequencies,
> and even then it usually has to be Fed frequency. Look at CB for
> instance or even most pirate AMs or FMs.

yes, that is possible, but since 802.11 is open space that factor will
not come into play.

Jochem Huhmann <[email protected]> wrote
> [email protected] (Daniel Packman) writes
>> none <[email protected]> wrote

>>> or are you starting to understand that apple will
>>> control the entire cell industry in 10 years?

>> It seems likely that the iphone has redefined the user interface,
>> but if Apple follows its past history, it might dominate the high
>> end, but won't be interested in low margin entry level units.

> If you leave things like web browsing and email alone, there's no reason
> why a smaller and much simpler iPhone nano shouldnt work very much the
> same way (touchscreen, screen and keyboard always in landscape mode).

Yes, but plenty wont want a phone that is that fragile to dropping.

So Apple hasnt got a hope in hell of controlling the entire cell industry.

> Let them come up with an iPod with a touchscreen first, so the screen gets cheaper...

There's a reason we aint seen an ipod with that yet.

> Anyway, I'm quite sure Apple has other things to care for right now.

Sure, but thats a separate issue to that stupid claim at the top.

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

> > you'll see what i'm saying in a few years.
>
>
> Not hardly. You are absolutely clueless, even for a shill.

let's see, AAPL stocked jumped up 3.66 today, but the NASDAQ was down.

and you were saying.............

none <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> or are you starting to understand that apple will control the entire
>>> cell industry in 10 years?
>>>
>>
>> Don;t be dumb.
>>
>> There will be me2 copies if the iphone at half the price in a years
>> time.
>
> well, not for a decade or so... you are forgetting Apple has over 200
> patents on the iPhone, so you won't see "copies" of it for at least 17
> years, just like you don't see copies of the iPod. they are illegal.

Its trivial to do end runs around patents, child.

> nice try though!

Yours is pathetic, as always.

Bill Kearney <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com> wrote:
>> yes, but established printers in the 80's said the same thing about
>> the LaserWriter, now 90% of those printers are "gone", put out of
>> business by a device that cost 2% of what they were selling.
>
> Your analogy using printers is weak, at best. It's not about the
> device it's about the network. Wifi networking as it stands now has
> no prayer of competing effectively with managed telco circuits.
>
>> ps: appl stock has shot up a full point since i wrote this note
>
> And are you jerking yourself off to these fanboy fantasies? God I
> hope so, otherwise it's REALLY a pathetic way to spend your free
> time, gushing about some company...

Least with the iphone it should be easier to clean.

none wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>you'll see what i'm saying in a few years.
>>
>>
>>Not hardly. You are absolutely clueless, even for a shill.
>
>
> let's see, AAPL stocked jumped up 3.66 today, but the NASDAQ was down.
>
> and you were saying.............


And this has what to do with your being clueless in your assertions over
patents, market dominance and technology acceptance?

The market as a whole was UP ... as was the NASDAQ UP.

I'd get a new broker, if he's feeding you what you parroted back.

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

> > let's see, AAPL stocked jumped up 3.66 today, but the NASDAQ was down.
> >
> > and you were saying.............
>
>
> And this has what to do with your being clueless in your assertions over
> patents, market dominance and technology acceptance?
>
> The market as a whole was UP ... as was the NASDAQ UP.
>
> I'd get a new broker, if he's feeding you what you parroted back.

i would never use a broker, they are middlemen and are NEVER efficient /
or acceptable.

none wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, News <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>let's see, AAPL stocked jumped up 3.66 today, but the NASDAQ was down.
>>>
>>>and you were saying.............
>>
>>
>>And this has what to do with your being clueless in your assertions over
>>patents, market dominance and technology acceptance?
>>
>>The market as a whole was UP ... as was the NASDAQ UP.
>>
>>I'd get a new broker, if he's feeding you what you parroted back.
>
>
> i would never use a broker, they are middlemen and are NEVER efficient /
> or acceptable.


Seems you can't negotiate rates/services.

And you have bad info. NASDAQ was UP, chump.