Magazines, websites getting desperate
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 5 Jul 2010 01:06 On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:29 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <qon236ttj7cmptd0jc61pvcs7gm314rmgq(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have >> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on >> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service >> it's silly to call it a phone. > >so what do you want to call it? I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it. I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid") Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used as phones. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 01:13 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 01:06:35 -0400, in <amp236t1v60ahpdtob8ts0j5vthtnrbj27(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:29 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >wrote: > >>In article <qon236ttj7cmptd0jc61pvcs7gm314rmgq(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have >>> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on >>> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service >>> it's silly to call it a phone. >> >>so what do you want to call it? > >I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it. >I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for >it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid") Android is just the name of the OS -- by that logic you should call the iPhone "IOS". My own Android phone is "T-Mobile 3G 3.5mm Jack" (one of the dumbest names ever invented), otherwise known as the "HTC Magic". You should at least be consistent. >Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used >as phones. Sure sounds like a double standard to me. THE HORSE IS REALLY STINKING NOW!!! ;) -- John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: John Navas on 5 Jul 2010 01:13 On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:32:03 -0400, in <pvn236thjol16jjbifu1sahm5airhk2ng6(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:19:27 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:51:08 -0400, in >><fcl236pkbdr20l179bqh8vib0hc9otgamc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:43:48 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >>>wrote: >> >>>>that's even sillier than before. the *main* purpose of a car is to go >>>>someplace. >>> >>>And the main purpose of a phone is to make and receive telephone >>>calls. >> >>The main purpose is whatever the owner wants it to be. >> >>>>however, as a mobile >>>>internet device or a portable music/video player, it can't be beat. >>> >>>Well, then, call it a "mobile internet device" or a "portable >>>music/video player". Don't call it a phone if is isn't a phone. >>> >>>What you have is a butterfly that you are still calling a caterpillar >>>just because it started out as a caterpillar. >> >>So are you now down to arguing semantics and labels? ;) > >It's always been about that. ... Roger that. -- John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: Savageduck on 5 Jul 2010 01:17 On 2010-07-04 21:25:16 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> said: > On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:20:39 -0400, in > <o0n236tkgc1ibgtn3n3ocptskaq3ak71jm(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:04:56 -0700, John Navas >> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>> What I actually say is you can't make valid criticisms if you have no >>> experience with that particular product. >> >> Yet, you presume to make global comments about T-Mobile compared to >> other carriers disregarding that what you have experienced has nothing >> to do with what other people experience in other parts of the country. > > My comments are actually about (a) my own experience and research, and > (b) what's available to everyone. > >>> One anecdotal example does not a proof make. >> >> I'm not offering that anecdote as proof. It's an example. The local >> newspaper's tech writer wrote a series on the various carriers and >> readers responded. The in-building complaints were the tech writer's >> observation and many readers wrote in with complaints about this. > > A few more anecdotal examples do not a proof make either. > "Garbage in, garbage out." Anecdotes aside. I live 13 miles from town (Paso Robles, CA) AT&T, Sprint, & T-mobile service within an 800 yd radius of my home is non-existent. Within a 5 mile radius it is patchy at best, with one four mile stretch of no service along Nacimiento Lake Drive between my home and town. Verizon has provided a consistent service for me since I got that first GTE Nokia brick some 20 years ago. Both of my vehicles have BlueTooth built in and that functions flawlessly. The only complaint I had was when the touch screen on the Samsung Omnia I had died after a year. It was replaced with a Motorola Android which has performed as advertised. In a major urban area such as the Bay area, consumers might have the luxury of choice, and it is quite conceivable that better connectivity, performance, and deals can be found with other providers, but Verizon is what works where I live. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 5 Jul 2010 01:23
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:13:34 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 01:06:35 -0400, in ><amp236t1v60ahpdtob8ts0j5vthtnrbj27(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:40:29 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <qon236ttj7cmptd0jc61pvcs7gm314rmgq(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper >>><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> "I don't use the phone much" is quite different from "I don't have >>>> phone service". I'm not discussing the amount of time spent on >>>> various features. I'm saying that if it doesn't have phone service >>>> it's silly to call it a phone. >>> >>>so what do you want to call it? >> >>I'd call the iPhone an "iPhone" because that's the brand name for it. >>I'd call the Android an "Android" because that's the brand name for >>it. (Although I keep reading that as "adnoid") > >Android is just the name of the OS Didn't know that. I was using that term because that's what people keep using here. >by that logic you should call the >iPhone "IOS". My own Android phone is "T-Mobile 3G 3.5mm Jack" (one of >the dumbest names ever invented), otherwise known as the "HTC Magic". >You should at least be consistent. > >>Generically, though, I wouldn't call them phones unless they were used >>as phones. > >Sure sounds like a double standard to me. > >THE HORSE IS REALLY STINKING NOW!!! ;) And yet you keep galloping back. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |