In article <slrnf98cpo.bma.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
nospam@insightbb.com says...
> none wrote on [Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:05:53 -0600]:
> > Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
> >
> >> > Every thing is in perfect real time, and real examples. Learn about the
> >> > iPhone, don't make things up to fit your ignorance.
> >>
> >> Are you *that* naive? (Again, another rhetorical question.)
> >>
> >> Google "slow iphone" and see what you get. Apparently the same device
> >> that wets your pants is having problems with slow Internet access.
> >
> > and that has nothing to do with the iPhone. the iPhone is exceedingly
> > quick. Snappy you could say... sure if you are stuck using a Edge
> > network the date network could be slow, but that's pretty rare in the
> > age of 802.11.
>
> This just proves you're a moron. 802.11 is very very very far from
> available everywhere.
>
> Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
> use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?

Let me get this straight, you're saying that 80kbs service is ok and
better than wifi? And even better than Verizon 1.5megabit EDVO Rev A?

In article <a-577AA2.07440511072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
none <a@b.com> wrote:

> > True- it's pretty, but it isn't a new FUNCTION. All music-playing phones
> > let you choose content by "album" or "artist." New look, old function.
>
> it's a new function, you haven't been able to "flick" through your
> albums with a finger before.

That's the interface. The function is to select an album. That's not a
new function. It's a new interface on an old function.

> > > first cell device to show the Actual Web - that's very new.
> >
> > Except for flash/java. It's closer than most devices, but still not the
> > "actual web."
>
> it has java... just not flash since it's obsolete and eats batteries.

Flash is obsolete? Hehe.

> > > first cell device to have your actual emails - that's very new.
> >
> > Huh? HTML e-mail has been available on other devices. I've had it for
> > over a year, although admittedly I needed third-party software (the free
> > QMail) on my WM phone. Now I have it natively (WM6) via software update
> > as well.
>
> not "real mail", the email on my iphone is indistinguishable from my
> computer email. it looks and acts the same, and that's a first for a
> phone.

Of course it isn't. Email is text and/or image data. That has been
available on many phones. There is no "real mail" versus "fake mail"
here.

> yes, and it's entirely possible at some future point, but i think apple
> was smart to make sure it's highly reliable. which it is.

So is my Nokia, which has third party applications on it. One being
Salling Clicker, a functionality I won't be expecting from the iPhone
any time soon...





--
Sandman[.net]

Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

> > you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
> > happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
>
> Now you're just being an asshole.

incorrect, i'm being truthful. try it sometime. or MOVE to a more
civilized location.

no kid "steals" in an affluent area, come on, get real....

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Really? I would be quite surprised if a lot of those show off purchases
> by "intelligent" people weren't made using a CC and being paid off in 99
> easy payments plus interest and penalties.

not here george, it's a wealthy location, up there with Malibu, in fact
I sold 2 iphones to a person with a summer home there. I'm up to 18
iphones sold as of this morning.

none wrote on [Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:29:56 -0600]:
> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>
>> > you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
>> > happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
>>
>> Now you're just being an asshole.
>
> incorrect, i'm being truthful. try it sometime. or MOVE to a more
> civilized location.
>
> no kid "steals" in an affluent area, come on, get real....

That's a lie.

Jason McNorton wrote on [Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:00:08 -0500]:
> In article <slrnf98cpo.bma.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> nospam@insightbb.com says...
>> none wrote on [Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:05:53 -0600]:
>> > Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Every thing is in perfect real time, and real examples. Learn about the
>> >> > iPhone, don't make things up to fit your ignorance.
>> >>
>> >> Are you *that* naive? (Again, another rhetorical question.)
>> >>
>> >> Google "slow iphone" and see what you get. Apparently the same device
>> >> that wets your pants is having problems with slow Internet access.
>> >
>> > and that has nothing to do with the iPhone. the iPhone is exceedingly
>> > quick. Snappy you could say... sure if you are stuck using a Edge
>> > network the date network could be slow, but that's pretty rare in the
>> > age of 802.11.
>>
>> This just proves you're a moron. 802.11 is very very very far from
>> available everywhere.
>>
>> Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
>> use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?
>
> Let me get this straight, you're saying that 80kbs service is ok and
> better than wifi? And even better than Verizon 1.5megabit EDVO Rev A?

Nope. That's not what I am saying at all. This "none" person seems to
believe that wifi is available everywhere, and for free.

It isn't, and it isn't.

At borders, starbucks etc you have to have a monthly plan with T-Mobile
to use their wifi.

Most places in the world do NOT have wifi. Even fewer have FREE wifi.

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote
> none <a@b.com> wrote

>> yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that have
>> and use the iphone against those that have never touched one.

> I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between those
> that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need for the
> latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings and tins
> cans before they would ever touch anything with the Apple logo on it.

Its never that black and white.

Todd clearly doesnt fit into either category, and neither do you or I.

> Of course this leaves the majority who really don't
> care either way, mildly amused about the hooha..

And plenty that realise that while the iphone certainly is
quite different in some areas like the UI, its nothing like as
revolutionary as the worst of the fanchildren like this one claim.

none <a@b.com> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that
>>> have and use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
>>
>> I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between
>> those that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need
>> for the latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings
>> and tins cans before they would ever touch anything with the Apple
>> logo on it. Of course this leaves the majority who really don't
>> care either way, mildly amused about the hooha..

> yes, there is some of that, i'll agree. but ALL
> phones will now work like the iPhone in 10 years,

Nope, just like all computers dont work like the Mac
and all music players dont work like ipods either.

> that's a fact written in today's stone.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about the basics of how the market works.

> the iPhone changed the world as we knew it, it took about 7 days, but
> it did happen. Now every Cell Phone must work like the iPhone or "die".

> It's that simple.

Pure pig ignorant fantasy, most obviously with cheap low end phones for starters.

It wont even be true of high end PDAs either.

Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <1184151109.214048.32090@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>,
> balanco01@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I dont consider the iphone a smartphone at all because you cant load
>> or run apps on it.
>
> Sure you can; the apps are Web 2 apps; besides, a Smartphone gets its
> name from the functions it can perform out of the box; not due to its
> ability to run third party apps.

> Out of the box, the iPhone runs rings around any other smartphone.

Fantasy. Its just got a rather unusual user interface.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:52:39 -0700, Thomas R. Kettler wrote
(in article <tkettler-C4E6D7.13523411072007@news.fuse.net>):

> In article <a-135706.11295611072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
> none <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>>
>>>> you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
>>>> happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
>>>
>>> Now you're just being an asshole.
>>
>> incorrect, i'm being truthful. try it sometime. or MOVE to a more
>> civilized location.
>>
>> no kid "steals" in an affluent area, come on, get real....
>
> I seriously doubt that. Many brats will shoplift as a matter of passage
> or initiation. However, in rich areas, what would likely happen is that
> the parents would just agree to pay for whatever was stolen and keep it
> out of the papers.
>
> Have you forgotten about Winona Ryder?
>
> Similarly, Leopold and Loeb were children of the elite in Chicago when
> they killed Bobby Franks in the 1930's for the thrill of it.

Bad example. The previous poster was talking about economic crime. The murder
of Bobby Franks was an act of two homosexual psychopaths. Their type of
privilege and wealth does not preclude mental illness.
>
> None, you really need to spend time in areas such as post-Katrina Gulf
> Coast. You are really immature and need to learn how other people live
> who must work to support their children by putting food on the table and
> a roof over their heads. After all, spoiled rich brats like Paris
> Hilton, Nicole Richie, Lindsay Lohan, etc. are far less civilized than
> the people who are paid to cook their food and make their beds.

Wealth has it's privileges, as they say, but brains or education aren't among
them. While rich people have access to the best schools and the finest
educational materials, its no guarantee that they can or will use them. Look
at Paris Hilton. A woman so dumb that she'd have to take classes in sex and
would still get it wrong.