These are the most recent forum messages posted by Zpike:
What an incontrovertibly shortsighted understanding of language. The speed has always been an advertised limitation. Just because one attribute of a service is limited doesn't mean that others (like time or capacity) need to be, and vice versa. Furthermore, I already explained to you how those distinctions work. So, you really have no excuse for failing to make them.
Re: FCC worthless
Don't get me wrong. I'm very cautions of Tom Wheeler's FCC. And I do disagree with a lot of what they do. But that doesn't mean I think they're an illegal organization that never acts in the consumer's interest as many of the faux-capitalists on this board maintain.
Wow Brad. If the Victor hadn't been confused enough, you have really managed to arrive at some rather contorted conclusions. Since you obviously understood absolutely nothing I was talking about, I won't bother responding to this. Suffice it to say that I wasn't trying to make any of the conclusions you inaccurately reasoned from my post, and that I maintain that the logical leaps you make from my posts don't follow from anything I've said. Sometimes I think you ...
Real software engineers would have a laugh if you said the script kiddies at Anonymous were talented hackers. It's well known that the attacks that have gained them so much fame and notoriety over the last few years were considered to be quite basic and unsophisticated- beginner stuff really. The fact that they were so successful says more about the utter incompetence of companies like Sony than it does about the talent of any hacker in Anonymous. Plus, there's ...
Sooooo... is that just conjecture? Or you have some good reason you believe that to be true? I only ask because I actually checked the last time someone on this site made a statement like that and there was a large fund setup to reimburse defrauded customers. I see no reason it would be any different now. So again, is that just conjecture or do you have some valid reason for that statement?
Re: You should be more worried about
You do realize that was the exact point I was trying to make. :P
Way to miss the point
YAY! Because there's obviously no conflict of interests when an ISP giant buys up a large media company. Sprint and T-mobile can't merge, but what's wrong wrong with AT&T and Verizon swallowing up every company on the planet? Obviously absolutely nothing.
Ummm... I write code for a living. How about you?
Where are masses of crony-capitalists railing against the FCC for once again trampling all over legitimate business practices and rattling on about how this will inevitably hurt consumers and drive prices up? Am I to honestly believe that not one of our crony-capitalist friends disagrees with this obvious government overreach and trampling of our rights? Am I to believe, by the utter silence on this article, that this instance of unforgivable interventionism has offended no one, or even worse, ...
The FCC usually posts how they spend the money from such fines somewhere on their website. If you really want to know you could always surf over there and read what they have to say. Why not let the rest of us know what you find out.
Re: FCC worthless
All these guys on here are pretending the FCC has failed consumers by acting on their behalf, but you are the ONLY one who understood exactly how the FCC has failed us. They should have acted sooner.
>>Technically shouldn't every company that offers unlimited data be sued by the FCC there is not one company that gives truly unlimited data. Yes, I think you are correct. They should all be sued for advertising their limited services as unlimited.
>>AT&T never had unlimited data. No company has unlimited data. Then why did they advertise it? Also, just to disprove your lie AOL was one company that delivered unlimited data. Once they ditched their hours/mo model and went to an unlimited model you could get data continuously at 56 kb/s for as long as you kept your service. That, my friend, was unlimited data. And it was the benchmark for what unlimited data meant, as the vast majority of internet ...
>>The government claims to fight for the consumer but their actions just lead to rising prices and fewer jobs for those consumers. Soooooooo..... you don't see anything wrong with the current market right? I mean you believe that ISP's are acting ethically and consumers are being treated fairly and that services are delivered at reasonable prices, right? You would call the current state of the market a success, right?
>>The days of low Internet usage is over. It's not like Data was at 300 mb was alot. people that are data hogs ruin it for the rest of us The days of news groups and grannies checking their email are over. It's not like it was when we all had dial up. People use the internet for absolutely everything now. People that use their mobile data and the internet the way it is marketed are just trying to get ...
Re: Except consumers WERE informed.. Here's the proof.
>>how the government makes moves with simple money grabs in mind instead of the consumers well being. Right, because consumer interests aren't served by unthrottled speeds. If the government was really looking out for the little guy they'd make sure all those bits went by slow enough to be inspected by the human eye. Then customers could be really sure of what they were getting. >>What I think nobody really grasps is that the wireless companies don't have the ...
Re: Except consumers WERE informed.. Here's the proof.
ROFL. Your analogy is hilariously bad and terribly flawed.
Why? You know of some magic algorithm that guesses the correct password on the first try? If not, then it matters.
Re: How to skirt the law
I know, right. What's more scary is that the Republicans AND Obama seem to be in agreement with the Freedom Act. If the cause is great enough to the establishment for the two (fictional) sides to stop pretending they're opposed to one another and embrace the same piece of legislation, you can rest assured it is not in the American people's interest.
I will wait and see
what happens with the Note 5. But if the battery is sealed in and there's no memory card slot, this phone will be a serious contender as my next device. I love the decision to go with leather. It seems there are premium materials that don't hinder key functionality after all. Phonescoop may think LG is foolish not to follow lockstep with the trends started by Apple, but personally I think Apple will go the way of most trends. ...
Re: Why? Why the curve?
>>A unique shape is one thing, but a lot of people highly value premium materials and craftsmanship. I see. So, your phone could be shaped like a pot and that would be fine, as long as premium materials were used? Or is shape just as important to aesthetics after all? And if aesthetics really have the value you say, then why not give this a chance? I would remind you that it hasn't been that long since the original iPhone ...
Color me interested
Color me interested
Why? Why the curve?
>>Why? Why the curve? I totally appreciate the phone's flexibility, but the curved shape adds absolutely no value other than the design aesthetic Is that any different from making a device out of flimsy metals and fragile glass, while sacrificing critical functionality like removable batteries and expandable memory, and calling it premium?
You missed my point entirely.
>>I thought it was clear we were talking about localized memory in smartphones, not all forms of localized data... We're talking about the demand for localized data, period. You can't just pretend that cell phones are some kind of special exception. And if you really believe they are, then you need to justify why. >>If you can put together a viable business plan and demonstrate a need in the market for a product that isn't there or other companies are not ...
>>If the need for localized data is that large wouldn't a company be able to profit from filling that need? Ever been to Best Buy and seen all the hard drives, NAS drives, dvd-r's, cd-r's, and memory sticks on sale? >>You can't say that companies are just exploiting areas for profit while at the same time claiming they are walking away leaving a huge gap in the market. Umm.... if you hadn't noticed Samsung is the worldwide leader in NAND Flash memory. https://fstoppers.com/gear/samsung -jumps-out-sd-microsd-card-space-color-coded- line-9567 They ...
>>Not when the irrational vastly outnumber the rational. I think that is a bad assumption biased by a constant barrage of customer support calls which only represent a small fraction of your actual customers. But if you truly do believe the vast majority of people to be quite irrational, how is it that you hope the free market will ever win?
>> I am going to keep an open mind and know there are multiple reasonable explanations as to why they would do this. I would hope that would mean that you are willing to look at the whole picture and see where the technology innovators are pushing us. While the cloud is absolutely awesome, I don't want all my personal data there. I don't want all the key features of my devices to be dependent on it. It is a ...
>>It doesn't matter if there is a reasonable explanation to give the customer that shows blame is not on the phone itself, once their irrationally pissed off no rational explanation can change that. Then does it make sense to serve the interests of the rational customer or the irrational one? Because you seem to arrive at the conclusion that the interests of the irrational customer (who can't be pacified in the first place) take precedence over those of the rational ...
>>Can we at least agree this is very plausible reasoning for going away from removable memory Another plausible explanation is that companies which are investing heavily in the cloud are pushing their customers onto it, whether they want to be there or not. One step in that direction is the removal of expandable memory. The difference between our two explanations is that yours is based on the conjecture that all of these companies have independently arrived at the same ...
I'm pretty sure I can get you one of these for $399.99. Let me know what you think. http://www.phonescoop.com/phones/ph one.php?p=63
Sounds like you don't even want a Smart Phone
How about a really slick looking credit card? That ought to cover most of your bases. You can get a 10 yr old cell phone for the rest.
Re: Oh I see
>>By going what your saying now Sasuung is no longer a premium device, nor is Apple, HTC, Motorola, etc Premium is, sadly, a subjective word. For many people those devices may be premium. In my opinion they are not. Hopefully the Note 5 will be premium. If not, I'll look to LG. Or perhaps by then Asus will have a premium device in the US.
Re: Oh I see
>>Ok so with that being said any device that has an accessible battery and/or SD card slot is a premium device? No. If someone was selling a premium automobile that didn't have air conditioning, I'd be the first to pipe up and say the car wasn't premium. However, I wouldn't go calling a Pinto premium just because it has this feature. But the fact remains that premium automobiles should have air conditioning.
Re: And the shill attacks begins....
Man, there was time when I respected your opinion. But your comments are bordering on absurd these days. >>But when the government is involved we can rest assured that it will be in the peoples best interests? Ummm.... hopefully. The point of government is to serve the people's interests. The point of corporations is to serve their own interests. Guess which one is the natural ally of the people's interests and has historically and still currently acts on their behalf. Now, guys ...
Re: Oh I see
>>Premium obviously doesnt mean having an accessible battery or an SD card slot. Ummmmm... yes, it does. >>Premium is going to be the build and the performance Amen to that brother. >>not necessarily how it looks Double Amen. >> If you recall the Galaxy Mega a few years back it had the look of a premium device but clearly wasnt. The mega had neither the looks, feel, specs, nor price tag of a premium device. It was just big. Big doesn't necessarily mean premium.
It certainly isn't enthusiasm, lol
>>My preference is chrome but they don't make phones in chrome anymore. (Nokia used to make phone in chrome like 10 years ago.) 1. Chrome OS came out in 2009. That wasn't 10 years ago. 2. I'm not aware that there was ever a phone running Chrome. Could you specify the model? As a tech fanatic, I'd be interested in seeing it.
(older messages not shown)