Report: two distinct iPhone models nearing production

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You don't see how it would be any less censored? So you think that each WiFi capable device has censoring capabilities?



    Consider for a moment a public demonstration taking place in a busy public forum that is coordinated by WiFi enabled devices that are not connected to a carrier, that are not to connected to the internet, that are not connected to anything but each other on an local area, ad-hoc, encrypted network that was discussed in private and enabled nearly instantly to coordinate an attack with unprecedented timing.



    That is just a quick and dirty idea off the top of my head, but the point is that the government would have no control over WiFi unless they actively jammed the wireless signals. Think beyond the Internet.





    PS: The correct term is "a series of tubes."



    You make it sound like terriorist cells work on an ad-hoc encrypted network. You do know what the range of an Ad-Hoc network would be, especially one powered by a mobile phone? They'd have to be that close together that they might as well just lean over and whisper in the other persons ear
  • Reply 42 of 53
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Consider for a moment a public demonstration... WiFi enabled ... ad-hoc, encrypted network



    I'm pretty certain the network you describe would fail unless it was a really small public demonstration...the collision rate would quickly approach a number equal to the number of devices.
  • Reply 43 of 53
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post


    You make it sound like terriorist cells work on an ad-hoc encrypted network. You do know what the range of an Ad-Hoc network would be, especially one powered by a mobile phone? They'd have to be that close together that they might as well just lean over and whisper in the other persons ear



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    I'm pretty certain the network you describe would fail unless it was a really small public demonstration...the collision rate would quickly approach a number equal to the number of devices.



    The point of my quick example wasn't an excerpt from a Tom Clancey novel. It was a just to demonstrate why an open and uncensored network would not be looked upon fondly by a communistic regime. There are many faults I can find with the rationale behind such actions, but that isn't what we are discussing; we are discussing the 'why' behind China's reasoning for not wanting to allow WiFI on mobile devices when the typical responses are "if they still monitor the internet then what is the big deal".
  • Reply 44 of 53
    taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The point of my quick example wasn't an excerpt from a Tom Clancey novel. It was a just to demonstrate why an open and uncensored network would not be looked upon fondly by a communistic regime. There are many faults I can find with the rationale behind such actions, but that isn't what we are discussing; we are discussing the 'why' behind China's reasoning for not wanting to allow WiFI on mobile devices when the typical responses are "if they still monitor the internet then what is the big deal".



    Ah.



    Then I suggest that the government in China doesn't want wi-fi capability 'cause their folks would use it for interdimensional transportation devices.
  • Reply 45 of 53
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You don't see how it would be any less censored? So you think that each WiFi capable device has censoring capabilities?



    Consider for a moment a public demonstration taking place in a busy public forum that is coordinated by WiFi enabled devices that are not connected to a carrier, that are not to connected to the internet, that are not connected to anything but each other on an local area, ad-hoc, encrypted network that was discussed in private and enabled nearly instantly to coordinate an attack with unprecedented timing.



    That is just a quick and dirty idea off the top of my head, but the point is that the government would have no control over WiFi unless they actively jammed the wireless signals. Think beyond the Internet.



    Hence the part of my statement, "So unless you're talking about in-country rogue wireless networks that are not connected to the rest of the world..." But as others mentioned, I highly doubt the feasibility or practicality of something like that. About the only thing it would enable is person-to-person chat on an individual level, something that is already accomplished via bluetooth, pirate FM, or as someone mentioned, leaning over and whispering something in the other guy's ear. So I really doubt that would be the reason for China Mobile not wanting wi-fi.





    Quote:

    PS: The correct term is "a series of tubes."



  • Reply 46 of 53
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post


    Hence the part of my statement, "So unless you're talking about in-country rogue wireless networks that are not connected to the rest of the world..." But as others mentioned, I highly doubt the feasibility or practicality of something like that. About the only thing it would enable is person-to-person chat on an individual level, something that is already accomplished via bluetooth, pirate FM, or as someone mentioned, leaning over and whispering something in the other guy's ear. So I really doubt that would be the reason for China Mobile not wanting wi-fi.











    The only thing more mind numbing than your post is your signature. This is not a political forum so take your political statements elsewhere - especially when said political statements are completely idiotic.
  • Reply 47 of 53
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post


    The only thing more mind numbing than your post is your signature. This is not a political forum so take your political statements elsewhere - especially when said political statements are completely idiotic.



    I imagine a lot of things probably have that kind of numbing effect on you? It's okay, just go back to watching your television, all these difficult "thoughts" and "different opinions" will slowly drift away...



    By the way, so far I don't think anyone has been discussing anything political in any way (besides some, perhaps unavoidable, hints at disdain for Chinese censorship). No one here has really made any political statements (until you came along). We're rather discussing the practical and technical advantages to censorship over mobile network vs. wi-fi.



    Finally, if you're suggesting that I modify my signature to be relevant to each thread I post in, all I can say is .
  • Reply 48 of 53
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post


    I imagine a lot of things probably have that kind of numbing effect on you? It's okay, just go back to watching your television, all these difficult "thoughts" and "different opinions" will slowly drift away...



    By the way, so far I don't think anyone has been discussing anything political in any way (besides some, perhaps unavoidable, hints at disdain for Chinese censorship). No one here has really made any political statements (until you came along). We're rather discussing the practical and technical advantages to censorship over mobile network vs. wi-fi.



    Finally, if you're suggesting that I modify my signature to be relevant to each thread I post in, all I can say is .



    Different opinions are fine - but sometimes they're just completely devoid of any logic and those do tend to hurt my head. Your portrait of Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq as these wonderful, fun-loving places until the big, bad U.S. came along is so completely untrue it's difficult to know where to begin - hence, the headache. Of course you don't need to change your signature for every thread, but when you're posting in an Apple forum you might want to try to keep your signature on the topic of Apple rather than using it to propagate your anti-U.S. ideology.
  • Reply 49 of 53
    meelashmeelash Posts: 1,045member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post


    Different opinions are fine - but sometimes they're just completely devoid of any logic and those do tend to hurt my head. Your portrait of Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq as these wonderful, fun-loving places until the big, bad U.S. came along is so completely untrue it's difficult to know where to begin - hence, the headache. Of course you don't need to change your signature for every thread, but when you're posting in an Apple forum you might want to try to keep your signature on the topic of Apple rather than using it to propagate your anti-U.S. ideology.



    Yeah, genius, in case you haven't noticed this Apple forum has a section called Apple Outsider as well, in which I sometimes like to post. So are you going to go to all the people posting in there and make them remove their Apple-related signature as not being politics-related?

    hahahahahahahhhhahahahahahah.



    Now stop hijacking this thread with your clueless political ranting. If you need education on muslim-world politics you can start a thread in AO or PM me.



    k? thanks.
  • Reply 50 of 53
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meelash View Post




    Now stop hijacking this thread with your clueless political ranting.



    k? thanks.



    What are you, a parrot? You're repeating the exact thing I initially said to you! Anyway, keep your misguided, off-topic signature - I really don't care anymore. Good day, sir!
  • Reply 51 of 53
    This went off topic quickly, thought it was about 2 differing models of iPhone.
  • Reply 52 of 53
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bikerdude View Post


    This went off topic quickly, thought it was about 2 differing models of iPhone.



    Precisely....all I want to know is what the thing is going to look like...flat back or rounded, metal or plastic. Really I just want a flat back. The aluminum looks cool and is sturdy but if it causes reception issues like some have claimed, then I can do without it.
  • Reply 53 of 53
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    To add to your comment, it was the Verizon exec who stated that Apple came to them first with an exclusive 5 year deal.





    two points on that

    1. Verizon refused to agree with keeping their hands off the design, which for Apple was non-negotiable



    2. the five years, I recall reading, was based on Apple's estimate on how many units would sell and thus how long it would take to earn back the money Verizon invested (plus a certain amount of extra profit). the phone has apparently proven way more popular than expected and thus the time could be flexing depending on how much money has been earned. this could be why no actual date has been given. but I would guess there's probably at least one more year at the least. during which time perhaps those not GSM companies will convert or something bigger and badder will develop in a stable enough form to be usable.
Sign In or Register to comment.