Jcoz
Mar 29, 03:15 PM
I could cause the antenna to lose all its bars by placing my one finger on the antenna... Thats ridiculous. And anyone who has one, on the At&T network and says "I've never dropped a call" is a fanboi in the worst way and flat out lying. All my iPhones, - and even non-iPhones - on AT&T's network drop calls period, all the time. Even if the antenna design was perfect on the iPhone 4, it would drop calls because of At&T's network, so yea... I don't believe that in a second.
Not to mention all the problems people were having with the screen, and the proximity sensors... and thats all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there is/was more. Also, I refused to buy another iPhone that didn't have more than 32 GB of space, since I'm currently maxing out the capacity on my current 32 GB iPhone. Thus, I decided not to upgrade to avoid dealing with all that. Really, the 4 was just problems and a few spec increases. The increased resolution of the display means nothing to me without a larger screen, and the 3GS was fast enough at the time. The one and only thing that I would have enjoyed is the bump in RAM.
Also, design-wise, I'd take the original iPhone over any of the others. It's too bad the AL causes havoc with radio signals. I would think someone who supposedly had all the iPhones would agree. And at least not think it looked like a "toy".
Good thing your not a designer, since when you designed crap and people called you out on it you'd be offended. :rolleyes: You'd probably not be able to emotionally handle it.
And I 100% know what I'm talking about. Because I have an Anti-Apple opinion doesn't mean I'm ill-informed and I don't know what I'm talking about. I've worked on and dealt with enough electronics to have an informed opinion.
Well I've owned a few iphones and I've dropped less calls with the iP4 than the others.
No issues with the screen, which is by far and away the #1 reason its better than any before it. There is no question in my mind that its the best phone I've used extensively, and without question (IMO, that is) better than any iPhone before it.
Original iPhone was the best form factor though, the feel of it was so much better than the iPhone 4.
Even given that its just your opinion, to say its a POS, is simple hyperbole, and discredits any argument you may have that it is not as good as its predecessors.
Not to mention all the problems people were having with the screen, and the proximity sensors... and thats all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there is/was more. Also, I refused to buy another iPhone that didn't have more than 32 GB of space, since I'm currently maxing out the capacity on my current 32 GB iPhone. Thus, I decided not to upgrade to avoid dealing with all that. Really, the 4 was just problems and a few spec increases. The increased resolution of the display means nothing to me without a larger screen, and the 3GS was fast enough at the time. The one and only thing that I would have enjoyed is the bump in RAM.
Also, design-wise, I'd take the original iPhone over any of the others. It's too bad the AL causes havoc with radio signals. I would think someone who supposedly had all the iPhones would agree. And at least not think it looked like a "toy".
Good thing your not a designer, since when you designed crap and people called you out on it you'd be offended. :rolleyes: You'd probably not be able to emotionally handle it.
And I 100% know what I'm talking about. Because I have an Anti-Apple opinion doesn't mean I'm ill-informed and I don't know what I'm talking about. I've worked on and dealt with enough electronics to have an informed opinion.
Well I've owned a few iphones and I've dropped less calls with the iP4 than the others.
No issues with the screen, which is by far and away the #1 reason its better than any before it. There is no question in my mind that its the best phone I've used extensively, and without question (IMO, that is) better than any iPhone before it.
Original iPhone was the best form factor though, the feel of it was so much better than the iPhone 4.
Even given that its just your opinion, to say its a POS, is simple hyperbole, and discredits any argument you may have that it is not as good as its predecessors.
BrandonKea
Sep 22, 02:06 PM
Target is better anyway. :)
Yeah, all this "Boycott Wal-Mart" talk rocks. I work for Target, so come on in guys and gals!
Yeah, all this "Boycott Wal-Mart" talk rocks. I work for Target, so come on in guys and gals!
xStep
Mar 6, 07:13 PM
I feel like I must visit Vancouver and Canada in general, as I see so many great photos in this thread from here.
Yea, at times it makes me home sick. :(
Yea, at times it makes me home sick. :(
mscriv
Apr 7, 11:53 AM
The Bible says many good things and many bad things. I was highlighting some of the bad things to show how people do pick and choose. Consider Deuteronomy 13-
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 4, 07:50 AM
I just hope that the videos come to Australia when they are announced in the USA.
If the movie store is announced on the 12th, I'm guessing the Aussie store will arrive some time in 2009 :) though maybe movies don't have as messed up distribution rights as music, but don't hold your breath.
If the movie store is announced on the 12th, I'm guessing the Aussie store will arrive some time in 2009 :) though maybe movies don't have as messed up distribution rights as music, but don't hold your breath.
army91c
Nov 3, 03:55 AM
Ever since the iPhone came out Apple has been trying to get Adobe to write a more streamlined mobile flash player. one that:
1) won't crash and possibly make the phone reboot
2) won't drain the battery too much
3) won't tax the processor so much that it creates a heat problem
4) is secure enough to keep malicious code from running on your phone.
For whatever reason Adobe has been unable or unwilling to do this. So, Yes Apple has created restrictions, but very necessary ones. Anything less would be bad for the end user and for Apple's reputation.
I paid for my iPhone, not apple.... How about apple let me make the choice if I want flash to run on my phone or not.
1) won't crash and possibly make the phone reboot
2) won't drain the battery too much
3) won't tax the processor so much that it creates a heat problem
4) is secure enough to keep malicious code from running on your phone.
For whatever reason Adobe has been unable or unwilling to do this. So, Yes Apple has created restrictions, but very necessary ones. Anything less would be bad for the end user and for Apple's reputation.
I paid for my iPhone, not apple.... How about apple let me make the choice if I want flash to run on my phone or not.
kgtenacious
Apr 17, 06:51 PM
It's appropriate that Toys'r'Us would carry the iPad 2, an overpriced toy.
-aggie-
Nov 29, 01:11 AM
Give this man/woman/fish (*delete as applicable*) a prize. In a nutshell, this is precisely why Adobe Flash isn't available on the iPhone - Adobe have never been able to make it work under OS X. I have a 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro and Flash consumes approximately 120% processor time just to playback a low-resolution YouTube video. Under no circumstances would I want to bring code that requires so much resources to do so little to a mobile device. Can you imagine what this would do to your browsing experience and battery life?
I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.
Isn't the user experience destroyed when we can't open a page or go to a link because we don't have Flash? I know what you're saying, but it's destroyed either way (too sloooow or nothing).
I have a lot against Adobe Flash but it is a fact of life and therefore I would like access to Flash content on the iPhone but it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and, right now, I have absolutely no faith that Adobe has a solution that wouldn't destroy the user experience.
Isn't the user experience destroyed when we can't open a page or go to a link because we don't have Flash? I know what you're saying, but it's destroyed either way (too sloooow or nothing).
jaxstate
Aug 29, 10:46 AM
I would pay 250. For somethings, Windows is the only viable OS. Like the commercial says, Macs are good for fun stuff, but PCs are for working.
Those prices are just crazy... Who the %&## will pay $250-$400 for a Win OS??? Especially since you know you will need additional anti-virus/spyware...
If this is true, M$ just shot themselves in the foot. There are viable OS alternatives today that are both better and cheaper.
This could be the fat lady's que for her her swan song.
What are the other viable alternatives? OSX and ????????
Those prices are just crazy... Who the %&## will pay $250-$400 for a Win OS??? Especially since you know you will need additional anti-virus/spyware...
If this is true, M$ just shot themselves in the foot. There are viable OS alternatives today that are both better and cheaper.
This could be the fat lady's que for her her swan song.
What are the other viable alternatives? OSX and ????????
Collin973
Sep 6, 10:02 AM
MBP's on September 12th are sounding even better and better. Now there's no big iMac to introduce, but there is a macbook pro update that I need to be introduced to!
24" iMac SWEET! If I needed a new desktop, I don't think I'd get one though. I've got a perfectly good 20" FP at home. I guess I'd have to get the MacPro. Darn it :D
24" iMac SWEET! If I needed a new desktop, I don't think I'd get one though. I've got a perfectly good 20" FP at home. I guess I'd have to get the MacPro. Darn it :D
Lau
Sep 14, 10:17 AM
I just went to Scotsys and John Lewis in Edinburgh to eye up the new nanos, and neither of them had them. <disappointed> :(
mac-er
Jul 23, 07:19 AM
Fake. Apple "ordered" a company to send all its manuscripts to it?
Companies don't "order" each other around....that wouldn't get very far in the business world.
Companies don't "order" each other around....that wouldn't get very far in the business world.
robertcoogan
Mar 18, 07:06 PM
My original iPod is still usable! (1st gen) I use it as a portable drive to hold backup financial files and my 1Password backup.
:D
:D
jmor
Oct 22, 05:25 PM
I've always loved the look of those iSight cameras, do they work well? (If that's whats on top of your monitor, I think it is anyway)
imutter
Mar 25, 07:03 PM
They like that number; the original Apple I cost $666.66. :)
yeah like forbidden fruit
yeah like forbidden fruit
foidulus
Mar 20, 09:43 PM
The ios iPod app is an abomination. Even with my moderately sized(about 3000 songs, most are just vocab flash cards) the thing chokes on my 3gs and even a bit on 1g iPad. It takes seconds, yes SECONDS to respond to input, not to mention all the crashing. Even if they could make a 128gb iPod touch, I would shudder to think at how insanely slow the iPod app would be if you loaded that puppy up with music.
Jason Beck
Mar 8, 12:06 AM
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183662_204037259623450_145460935481083_776619_2412302_n.jpg
.jpg "funny friendship quotes")
funny friendship quotes
Funny Friendship Quotes
mikeschmeee
Mar 6, 06:20 PM
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v26/p789595326-5.jpg
Where is this?!?!!? Awesome shot!
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG7056-upload/1207750652_2ZMuC-XL.jpg
Amazing! How close where you? what lens are you shooting with?
My photo for today...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5501494819_983243de4e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5501494819/)
Where is this?!?!!? Awesome shot!
http://www.robertgravel.ca/Animals/Oiseaux/MG7056-upload/1207750652_2ZMuC-XL.jpg
Amazing! How close where you? what lens are you shooting with?
My photo for today...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5501494819_983243de4e_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5501494819/)
Demoman
Jul 23, 12:00 AM
apple needs to fix the video handling of movies in itunes before anyhting can really be done, its a real mess right now
andreas
please rethink that statement.
andreas
please rethink that statement.
jknight8907
Mar 12, 06:35 PM
Again, the military is inextricable from the economy. Not only are large sectors heavily dependent on military spending (like the town of 150,000 just west of me, that would utterly collapse if its two bases were closed), but a weaker military would risk tremendous losses in international commerce as foreign nations take back control of their own markets and resources absent the pressure of potential American military action.
If you want to cut the military budget significantly, you had best have a really good plan in place to deal with the consequences. I think it is unlikely that our brand of "capitalism" would last long without a strong Pentagon.
(Which could be a good thing, in the long run, but a treacherous bridge to cross.)
In a free and prosperous market, business exists and is done solely because it is profitable. When it ceases being profitable, it must be stopped. To keep pouring 100 units of money into something for the sake of getting 10 units of money out via payroll can only end in one thing....failure. (I'm using 'units of money' as a general example)
If you want to cut the military budget significantly, you had best have a really good plan in place to deal with the consequences. I think it is unlikely that our brand of "capitalism" would last long without a strong Pentagon.
(Which could be a good thing, in the long run, but a treacherous bridge to cross.)
In a free and prosperous market, business exists and is done solely because it is profitable. When it ceases being profitable, it must be stopped. To keep pouring 100 units of money into something for the sake of getting 10 units of money out via payroll can only end in one thing....failure. (I'm using 'units of money' as a general example)
Huntn
Mar 10, 10:25 PM
cutting back on the Military is everyone's answer but mine ... careful what you wish for
here is the new Security you all hope for
Do you realize how much the U.S. spends as compared to all of the other countries on this planet?
2009 Military Budget Country Comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png
here is the new Security you all hope for
Do you realize how much the U.S. spends as compared to all of the other countries on this planet?
2009 Military Budget Country Comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png
Evangelion
Aug 30, 02:36 AM
Perfect � Not Only Is Vista Frickin' Buggy Inferior � It Cost $110 More Too :eek:
Leopard will eat Vista for breakfast. :)
But then again, you could run it on dirt-cheap generic PC, whereas Leopard needs a Mac.
Leopard will eat Vista for breakfast. :)
But then again, you could run it on dirt-cheap generic PC, whereas Leopard needs a Mac.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 03:05 PM
Has fivepoint even commented once on his own thread? :confused:
Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.
Be grateful for small mercies.
Count your blessings.
The grenade-tosser rarely hangs about.
Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.
Be grateful for small mercies.
Count your blessings.
The grenade-tosser rarely hangs about.
yellow
Aug 9, 10:55 AM
Why did they use a 3rd party USB wireless card then?
Do we really need to rehash all this?
What they put forth as a hack is fishy. There's a lot of missing information.
They could have hung it off a bar of soap with linux installed on it and done the same exploit. Because they hate soap and think linux is for girls.
It's just FUDtardery.
Do we really need to rehash all this?
What they put forth as a hack is fishy. There's a lot of missing information.
They could have hung it off a bar of soap with linux installed on it and done the same exploit. Because they hate soap and think linux is for girls.
It's just FUDtardery.
No comments:
Post a Comment