Extreme is not one to let little details like that get in the way of the point he wants to make.
The reason I picked another article was to show this is not iPhone related but related to future demand. A statement was made that this problem was related to the success of the iPhone with isn't an accurate statement. The shortage isn't related to any one phone or any one network.
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
+1
Physics in university is long time ago, but I think I can predict that the carriers will not be able to keep the promise that the mobile internet can replace the traditional network in the next couple of years. That's what You might think you'll get when you miss the fine print of your contract only counting on the advertisement.
New services like cloud computing, media streaming, VOIP, tethering etc. will increase the traffic faster than they can expand their networks and spoil their mixed calculation.
Their possible sanctions against this trend are blocking of those services, throttling, cutting bandwidth or charging more for consuming bandwidth.
It's all about punishing.
I think a reward for sensible use of bandwidth (monthly paid refund) might be a more appealing way for most of us compared to a "all you can eat buffet" with a 200 pond bouncer looking at every bite You do when You are really hungry and preventing You from choosing what You like.
Sensible use of mobile bandwidth is environmental protection.
I don't know. Is that the video with your wife on the left?
Hmmmm. Thats a guy on the left. You are starting to concern me you cant tell the difference. See what happens when you spend too much time in the dark with the Mac.
"We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month," he said in a speech to attendees. "So we must ask: What happens when every mobile user has an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Blackberry Tour or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or netbooks?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
THe 700mhz spectrum was sold in block for a total bid of 19.5 billion. Clearly ATT, Verizon and Google were bidders. I'm not sure if its been annouced who aquired which blocks. The amount of 19.5 billion was close to twice as much as the FCC expected.
"We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month," he said in a speech to attendees. "So we must ask: What happens when every mobile user has an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Blackberry Tour or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or netbooks?"
Well, duh. This is called "AppleInsider," after all. And, like it or not, it's the iPhone that really got the wave going in the smartphone business.
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
You should be more worried about ELF's not these high frequency's. ELF's can move weather and cause upper atmosphere distortions and even remove part of the atmosphere itself.
These frequency's I think are almost harmless and if you ever turned on a radio and heard static... That's not just static that's the universe around us talking on the same frequency your tuned into. So whether it's from a nearby radio tower or the big bang (or whatever else is causing it, not looking it up and I don't know for sure but it is from Outer Space - insert theme music here) you'll still be getting hit with something.
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
There are many legitimate things to be afraid of in the modern world, but cell phone radiation isn't one of them. The wavelengths are too long and the power too low to break chemical bonds in your cells. Exposing yourself to sunlight is *much* more dangerous.
As Bob Park, a physicist at U Maryland put it, "The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the [Nobel] prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker."
There are always anecdotes about, for example, how vaccinations don't work because someone died after taking one, and how global warming is disproved because it's cooler on this date than it was a year ago. This isn't how science works. People are extremely good at fooling themselves, and so science has had to learn and develop elaborate techniques to defend against this. If we just depended on intuition and anecdote we'd never get anywhere.
According to careful experiment, there is no effect here. According to well tested theory, there should be no effect here.
There are many legitimate things to be afraid of in the modern world, but cell phone radiation isn't one of them. The wavelengths are too long and the power too low to break chemical bonds in your cells. Exposing yourself to sunlight is *much* more dangerous.
As Bob Park, a physicist at U Maryland put it, "The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the [Nobel] prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker."
There are always anecdotes about, for example, how vaccinations don't work because someone died after taking one, and how global warming is disproved because it's cooler on this date than it was a year ago. This isn't how science works. People are extremely good at fooling themselves, and so science has had to learn and develop elaborate techniques to defend against this. If we just depended on intuition and anecdote we'd never get anywhere.
According to careful experiment, there is no effect here. According to well tested theory, there should be no effect here.
Thanks for that, it's pretty interesting but I ain't convinced yet.
I remember too much over the years about siting of tv and radio masts and emissions tests of mobile phone towers placed next to schools etc etc. I just don't buy it.
Here's an article which caught my eye on saturday:
Now granted, he does use the words 'no conclusive proof' : "The long-awaited publication of the Interphone final results paper, which will include a public health message, is likely to force a revision of advice even if there is no conclusive proof that mobile phones cause brain cancer."
but further down he also says: "Most studies including ours show we do see something happening in what we call long-term users."
Yeesh, if you are going to contradict someone, at least provide a basic counterargument.
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
He didn?t say it wasn?t well established. He stated that ?it's the iPhone that really got the wave going in the smartphone business.? That is true. It was the stagnant, carrier controlled market that even allowed Apple to compete with a smartphone. Nokia?s CEO has admitted as much.
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
The rest of the world has high-end Nokia N-series phones because when they sign a contract, they get them for free (or really really cheap). They are used as high-end feature phones, nothing more and nothing less.
Comments
Do your homework. Verizon won a big portion of it.
I believe Verizon got Block D which was the largest block.
Extreme is not one to let little details like that get in the way of the point he wants to make.
The reason I picked another article was to show this is not iPhone related but related to future demand. A statement was made that this problem was related to the success of the iPhone with isn't an accurate statement. The shortage isn't related to any one phone or any one network.
Extreme is not one to let little details like that get in the way of the point he wants to make.
Hey I found your home video on the net. Are you the guy on the right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjBqFMwM08
Hey I found your home video on the net. Are you the guy on the right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjBqFMwM08
I don't know. Is that the video with your wife on the left?
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
+1
Physics in university is long time ago, but I think I can predict that the carriers will not be able to keep the promise that the mobile internet can replace the traditional network in the next couple of years. That's what You might think you'll get when you miss the fine print of your contract only counting on the advertisement.
New services like cloud computing, media streaming, VOIP, tethering etc. will increase the traffic faster than they can expand their networks and spoil their mixed calculation.
Their possible sanctions against this trend are blocking of those services, throttling, cutting bandwidth or charging more for consuming bandwidth.
It's all about punishing.
I think a reward for sensible use of bandwidth (monthly paid refund) might be a more appealing way for most of us compared to a "all you can eat buffet" with a 200 pond bouncer looking at every bite You do when You are really hungry and preventing You from choosing what You like.
Sensible use of mobile bandwidth is environmental protection.
I don't know. Is that the video with your wife on the left?
Hmmmm. Thats a guy on the left. You are starting to concern me you cant tell the difference. See what happens when you spend too much time in the dark with the Mac.
Hmmmm. Thats a guy on the left.
Guess that wasn't my home video then. Maybe you posted a link to yours by mistake.
Guess that wasn't my home video then. Maybe you posted a link to yours by mistake.
Oh well I was hoping you could do better then that comeback.
Oh well I was hoping you could do better then that comeback.
I was hoping you'd seek help for your inferiority complex.
The article is a bit slanted towards the iPhone. This is what was really said.
http://www.twice.com/article/357112-...ectrum_Gap.php
"We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month," he said in a speech to attendees. "So we must ask: What happens when every mobile user has an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Blackberry Tour or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or netbooks?"
THe 700mhz spectrum was sold in block for a total bid of 19.5 billion. Clearly ATT, Verizon and Google were bidders. I'm not sure if its been annouced who aquired which blocks. The amount of 19.5 billion was close to twice as much as the FCC expected.
Good info. Thanks.
The article is a bit slanted towards the iPhone. This is what was really said.
http://www.twice.com/article/357112-...ectrum_Gap.php
"We are fast entering a world where mass-market mobile devices consume thousands of megabytes each month," he said in a speech to attendees. "So we must ask: What happens when every mobile user has an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Blackberry Tour or whatever the next device is? What happens when we quadruple the number of subscribers with mobile broadband on their laptops or netbooks?"
Well, duh. This is called "AppleInsider," after all. And, like it or not, it's the iPhone that really got the wave going in the smartphone business.
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
You should be more worried about ELF's not these high frequency's. ELF's can move weather and cause upper atmosphere distortions and even remove part of the atmosphere itself.
These frequency's I think are almost harmless and if you ever turned on a radio and heard static... That's not just static that's the universe around us talking on the same frequency your tuned into. So whether it's from a nearby radio tower or the big bang (or whatever else is causing it, not looking it up and I don't know for sure but it is from Outer Space - insert theme music here) you'll still be getting hit with something.
I would prefer to see less bandwidth rather than more, I can't believe it's safe to surround ourselves with ever-increasing amounts of radiation like this.
I'd rather see people access heavy stuff like movies etc by wire ( not even home wi-fi ) and synch to their mobile devices than fill the air with it.
There are many legitimate things to be afraid of in the modern world, but cell phone radiation isn't one of them. The wavelengths are too long and the power too low to break chemical bonds in your cells. Exposing yourself to sunlight is *much* more dangerous.
As Bob Park, a physicist at U Maryland put it, "The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the [Nobel] prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker."
There are always anecdotes about, for example, how vaccinations don't work because someone died after taking one, and how global warming is disproved because it's cooler on this date than it was a year ago. This isn't how science works. People are extremely good at fooling themselves, and so science has had to learn and develop elaborate techniques to defend against this. If we just depended on intuition and anecdote we'd never get anywhere.
According to careful experiment, there is no effect here. According to well tested theory, there should be no effect here.
Do your homework. Verizon won a big portion of it.
No! I'm too lazy. You do it for me, (pretty please?)
Well, duh. This is called "AppleInsider," after all. And, like it or not, it's the iPhone that really got the wave going in the smartphone business.
No it wasn't
No it wasn't
Yeesh, if you are going to contradict someone, at least provide a basic counterargument.
There are many legitimate things to be afraid of in the modern world, but cell phone radiation isn't one of them. The wavelengths are too long and the power too low to break chemical bonds in your cells. Exposing yourself to sunlight is *much* more dangerous.
As Bob Park, a physicist at U Maryland put it, "The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the [Nobel] prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker."
There are always anecdotes about, for example, how vaccinations don't work because someone died after taking one, and how global warming is disproved because it's cooler on this date than it was a year ago. This isn't how science works. People are extremely good at fooling themselves, and so science has had to learn and develop elaborate techniques to defend against this. If we just depended on intuition and anecdote we'd never get anywhere.
According to careful experiment, there is no effect here. According to well tested theory, there should be no effect here.
Thanks for that, it's pretty interesting but I ain't convinced yet.
I remember too much over the years about siting of tv and radio masts and emissions tests of mobile phone towers placed next to schools etc etc. I just don't buy it.
Here's an article which caught my eye on saturday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...phone-use.html
Now granted, he does use the words 'no conclusive proof' : "The long-awaited publication of the Interphone final results paper, which will include a public health message, is likely to force a revision of advice even if there is no conclusive proof that mobile phones cause brain cancer."
but further down he also says: "Most studies including ours show we do see something happening in what we call long-term users."
I ain't convinced yet, but thanks a mil.
Yeesh, if you are going to contradict someone, at least provide a basic counterargument.
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
He didn?t say it wasn?t well established. He stated that ?it's the iPhone that really got the wave going in the smartphone business.? That is true. It was the stagnant, carrier controlled market that even allowed Apple to compete with a smartphone. Nokia?s CEO has admitted as much.
ok, the smartphone market was well established prior to the existance of the iPhone. Maybe it kicked things off in the US, but not in the rest of the world
The rest of the world has high-end Nokia N-series phones because when they sign a contract, they get them for free (or really really cheap). They are used as high-end feature phones, nothing more and nothing less.