jdb8167 said: There are a couple of strategies to extend the battery life when using it for sleep tracking. To get the most battery life, put the watch in Airplane Mode before going to bed. This turns off all the radios. Turn on Theater Mode. This turns off the Wake Screen on Wrist Raise feature and mutes the watch. Finally, probably overkill since notifications are probably impossible in Airplane Mode, but you can also turn on Do Not Disturb.
Probably good tips anyway if you're going to wear something with radios for that much time. While we don't know, for sure, what the final impact of all these radios strapped to our bodies or in our ears will be, we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for). Better safe than sorry.
No, we don’t know that. Your saying so doesn’t magically make it true. We DO know that there is no impact from using cell phones of any kind, because several studies have shown that. There was also an actuarial study done that showed that, with millions of people in the tables, there has been no rise in cancer or any other problem since the use of cell phones began. That’s really pretty definitive.
I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
I find it annoying that they raised them. Why did they do that? Verizon had $5 on their web page for that. Now it’s double, the same price as for our iPads, which I have no doubt will continue to use far more of the bandwidth. After all, the data for these will come out of the same allocation as for the rest of our devices.
what I’m wondering about is whether they will give an extra amount per device as they do for our phones now. That’s 2GB per month for each of our three phones. I’ve never looked to see if they do that for our iPads as well. I guess I’ll have to look at the bill. If they do, then the $10 isn’t as bad as all that, but I doubt they will.
1) If you want a device always connected to a cell network why think that $10 is fine for the iPad, but not OK for Apple Watch? It's a node on their network, which is why adding a flip phone to your account is also $10.
2) It seems unlikely that there are LTE Watch customers that would fine an extra $60 over a year as too much. But if you need some arbitrary justification, the lack of an activation fee and 3 months free is your $60 right there. Fuck, if it wasn't already included I'd pay another $10 month just to get their servers to auto-forward cals to my Watch's HW ID and spoof my iPhone's phone number when calling out so people don't have to figure out which device to call me on.
Yeah, what a scam. 10 bucks a month just to have the device on the cellular network seems absurd. These are the same clowns that scammed us on SMS costs for years and years.
I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month.
I think you're referring to me, but all I did was point out articles that said that devices with LTE-M had that low cost when that was presented as an option for Watch for simple data and an SOS safety feature. If I made any absolutely claims about what "[was] going to be" for the Apple Watch I'd love to see those posts, but I don't think I even said they "will have" cellular even though I had hoped for it.
I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
I find it annoying that they raised them. Why did they do that? Verizon had $5 on their web page for that. Now it’s double, the same price as for our iPads, which I have no doubt will continue to use far more of the bandwidth. After all, the data for these will come out of the same allocation as for the rest of our devices.
what I’m wondering about is whether they will give an extra amount per device as they do for our phones now. That’s 2GB per month for each of our three phones. I’ve never looked to see if they do that for our iPads as well. I guess I’ll have to look at the bill. If they do, then the $10 isn’t as bad as all that, but I doubt they will.
1) If you want a device always connected to a cell network why think that $10 is fine for the iPad, but not OK for Apple Watch? It's a node on their network, which is why adding a flip phone to your account is also $10.
2) It seems unlikely that there are LTE Watch customers that would fine an extra $60 over a year as too much. But if you need some arbitrary justification, the lack of an activation fee and 3 months free is your $60 right there. Fuck, if it wasn't already included I'd pay another $10 month just to get their servers to auto-forward cals to my Watch's HW ID and spoof my iPhone's phone number when calling out so people don't have to figure out which device to call me on.
Why did they have the price as $5 for so many months, and then suddenly double it? That needs to be answered. Verizon is known for charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their phone plans pretend you’re getting a good deal if you pay the way they want you to. But it actually costs much more that way, though they sell it a different way. So one always needs to be skeptical over what they do. I doubt their costs suddenly rose by $5 a month. No, they suddenly saw an opportunity when the new Apple Watch was announced, because they got almost no takers on the $5 plans from the few Android/Tizen Watch owners, but they know that Apple Watch owners aren’t that cheap.
I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
I find it annoying that they raised them. Why did they do that? Verizon had $5 on their web page for that. Now it’s double, the same price as for our iPads, which I have no doubt will continue to use far more of the bandwidth. After all, the data for these will come out of the same allocation as for the rest of our devices.
what I’m wondering about is whether they will give an extra amount per device as they do for our phones now. That’s 2GB per month for each of our three phones. I’ve never looked to see if they do that for our iPads as well. I guess I’ll have to look at the bill. If they do, then the $10 isn’t as bad as all that, but I doubt they will.
1) If you want a device always connected to a cell network why think that $10 is fine for the iPad, but not OK for Apple Watch? It's a node on their network, which is why adding a flip phone to your account is also $10.
2) It seems unlikely that there are LTE Watch customers that would fine an extra $60 over a year as too much. But if you need some arbitrary justification, the lack of an activation fee and 3 months free is your $60 right there. Fuck, if it wasn't already included I'd pay another $10 month just to get their servers to auto-forward cals to my Watch's HW ID and spoof my iPhone's phone number when calling out so people don't have to figure out which device to call me on.
Why did they have the price as $5 for so many months, and then suddenly double it? That needs to be answered. Verizon is known for charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their phone plans pretend you’re getting a good deal if you pay the way they want you to. But it actually costs much more that way, though they sell it a different way. So one always needs to be skeptical over what they do. I doubt their costs suddenly rose by $5 a month. No, they suddenly saw an opportunity when the new Apple Watch was announced, because they got almost no takers on the $5 plans from the few Android/Tizen Watch owners, but they know that Apple Watch owners aren’t that cheap.
that’s what bothers me.
Why does it need to be answered, especially when you then made a statement telling me why they did it? Why did they have the iPad Pro for $50 or the iPhone SE for $50 more until yesterday? Why do you want answers now but didn't when a dumb phone would also be $10? Do those other smartwatches even have full chip support for making calls or all the convenience of piloted phone number?
I was arguing, not long ago, with someone here who kept insisting that monthly charges were going to be on the order of $1-$2 a month. At the time, I had links saying that charges were $5 a month for some, and $10 for another. Verizon had it at $5, which I was happy about. To see that it looks that they’re going to $10 is disappointing, as it looks as though all three of us here are going to want this.
Well, this is their starting price. Surely prices will fall as competition increases.
I find it annoying that they raised them. Why did they do that? Verizon had $5 on their web page for that. Now it’s double, the same price as for our iPads, which I have no doubt will continue to use far more of the bandwidth. After all, the data for these will come out of the same allocation as for the rest of our devices.
what I’m wondering about is whether they will give an extra amount per device as they do for our phones now. That’s 2GB per month for each of our three phones. I’ve never looked to see if they do that for our iPads as well. I guess I’ll have to look at the bill. If they do, then the $10 isn’t as bad as all that, but I doubt they will.
1) If you want a device always connected to a cell network why think that $10 is fine for the iPad, but not OK for Apple Watch? It's a node on their network, which is why adding a flip phone to your account is also $10.
2) It seems unlikely that there are LTE Watch customers that would fine an extra $60 over a year as too much. But if you need some arbitrary justification, the lack of an activation fee and 3 months free is your $60 right there. Fuck, if it wasn't already included I'd pay another $10 month just to get their servers to auto-forward cals to my Watch's HW ID and spoof my iPhone's phone number when calling out so people don't have to figure out which device to call me on.
Why did they have the price as $5 for so many months, and then suddenly double it? That needs to be answered. Verizon is known for charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their phone plans pretend you’re getting a good deal if you pay the way they want you to. But it actually costs much more that way, though they sell it a different way. So one always needs to be skeptical over what they do. I doubt their costs suddenly rose by $5 a month. No, they suddenly saw an opportunity when the new Apple Watch was announced, because they got almost no takers on the $5 plans from the few Android/Tizen Watch owners, but they know that Apple Watch owners aren’t that cheap.
that’s what bothers me.
Why does it need to be answered, especially when you then made a statement telling me why they did it? Why did they have the iPad Pro for $50 or the iPhone SE for $50 more until yesterday? Why do you want answers now but didn't when a dumb phone would also be $10? Do those other smartwatches even have full chip support for making calls or all the convenience of piloted phone number?
My reasons will not be their reasons, obviously. I would like to know what they have to say about suddenly doubling the price.
we know why Apple raised the price. NAND prices are still rising. Manufacturers swallow those price rises until they no longer can do so. Apple figured out that they could no longer do so, so they raised the price. They’re not the only company doing so. SSD manufacturers have been raising prices as well.
i do’nt know about dumb phones, because I’ve never had one, and have no interest in one. So I do know about what matters to me, and, these days, most other people, but not that.
Youre strangly hostile to this. I can’t understand why. Since when are you opposed to people questioning what companies do?
melgross said: No, we don’t know that. Your saying so doesn’t magically make it true. We DO know that there is no impact from using cell phones of any kind, because several studies have shown that. There was also an actuarial study done that showed that, with millions of people in the tables, there has been no rise in cancer or any other problem since the use of cell phones began. That’s really pretty definitive.
I'm not sure if you read what I wrote... because I addressed that. The studies are looking at the wrong thing. Epigenetics and our understanding of cellular communication are relatively new fields. You're just a couple decades behind in your scientific understanding.
melgross said: Why did they have the price as $5 for so many months, and then suddenly double it? That needs to be answered. Verizon is known for charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their phone plans pretend you’re getting a good deal...
Most businesses will charge what they think they can get away with. The problem here (at least in USA and especially Canada) is the lack of competition. There's no driver to keep prices in check, so the telcos are making insane profits (especially wired internet) that they wouldn't otherwise be able to.
That said, I don't so much think that $10 extra to add a device to your plan is the problem... it that your plan probably costs $50+ for one device, to begin with. If the phone where $30 and then adding the watch/tablet etc were another $10, that would seem quite reasonable. The problem is that we're having to pay $100/mo for this, and $100/mo for that, and then adding more hurt to the pile just gets people angry.
melgross said: No, we don’t know that. Your saying so doesn’t magically make it true. We DO know that there is no impact from using cell phones of any kind, because several studies have shown that. There was also an actuarial study done that showed that, with millions of people in the tables, there has been no rise in cancer or any other problem since the use of cell phones began. That’s really pretty definitive.
I'm not sure if you read what I wrote... because I addressed that. The studies are looking at the wrong thing. Epigenetics and our understanding of cellular communication are relatively new fields. You're just a couple decades behind in your scientific understanding.
melgross said: Why did they have the price as $5 for so many months, and then suddenly double it? That needs to be answered. Verizon is known for charging as much as they think they can get away with. Their phone plans pretend you’re getting a good deal...
Most businesses will charge what they think they can get away with. The problem here (at least in USA and especially Canada) is the lack of competition. There's no driver to keep prices in check, so the telcos are making insane profits (especially wired internet) that they wouldn't otherwise be able to.
That said, I don't so much think that $10 extra to add a device to your plan is the problem... it that your plan probably costs $50+ for one device, to begin with. If the phone where $30 and then adding the watch/tablet etc were another $10, that would seem quite reasonable. The problem is that we're having to pay $100/mo for this, and $100/mo for that, and then adding more hurt to the pile just gets people angry.
Epigenetics is not new. My degree is in evolutionary animal behavior. I belong to the AAAS, and am a member of the National Acadamy of Sciences. I do follow this pretty closely. Your statement here is simply wrong, and you don’t understand what epigenetics means, so don’t throw words into a sentence unless you do.
melgross said: Epigenetics is not new. My degree is in evolutionary animal behavior. I belong to the AAAS, and am a member of the National Acadamy of Sciences. I do follow this pretty closely. Your statement here is simply wrong, and you don’t understand what epigenetics means, so don’t throw words into a sentence unless you do.
That's good, but I'm also not stupid. While it's not new, it's new enough in how it actually impacts much of the thinking related to genetics, health, etc. for most people who aren't working directly in the field.
The point is that the studies were trying to examine cellular damage due to RF (I'm a ham radio guy and my initial degree was in electronic engineering), or measure cancer rates in cell usage populations, etc. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work like that. A ton of things impact gene expression, so you don't need to directly damage the DNA to have an impact. And, that impact might be downstream, not direct. It might not even be cancer we're talking about.
The system is WAY more complex than what those studies were taking into account. And, while I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I smart enough to listen to experts in the field and get a rough idea of what's going on.
melgross said: Epigenetics is not new. My degree is in evolutionary animal behavior. I belong to the AAAS, and am a member of the National Acadamy of Sciences. I do follow this pretty closely. Your statement here is simply wrong, and you don’t understand what epigenetics means, so don’t throw words into a sentence unless you do.
That's good, but I'm also not stupid. While it's not new, it's new enough in how it actually impacts much of the thinking related to genetics, health, etc. for most people who aren't working directly in the field.
The point is that the studies were trying to examine cellular damage due to RF (I'm a ham radio guy and my initial degree was in electronic engineering), or measure cancer rates in cell usage populations, etc. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work like that. A ton of things impact gene expression, so you don't need to directly damage the DNA to have an impact. And, that impact might be downstream, not direct. It might not even be cancer we're talking about.
The system is WAY more complex than what those studies were taking into account. And, while I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I smart enough to listen to experts in the field and get a rough idea of what's going on.
I also listen to experts in the field. And so far, there is no evidence of anything you’re stating as being true. I really don’t mind people saying that their interpretation of something is this, or that. But I do mind when people say that something is true, when there is no evidence that it is.
melgross said: I also listen to experts in the field. And so far, there is no evidence of anything you’re stating as being true. I really don’t mind people saying that their interpretation of something is this, or that. But I do mind when people say that something is true, when there is no evidence that it is.
I never said it was true (i.e.: that it is harming us), I said we don't know. I'd rather be safe than sorry, as it is having some impact (we just don't know whether harmful or not, or to what degree). As to evidence, there are cases of people who have some pretty extreme problems and reactions to RF... we just don't understand the how and why well yet.
melgross said: I also listen to experts in the field. And so far, there is no evidence of anything you’re stating as being true. I really don’t mind people saying that their interpretation of something is this, or that. But I do mind when people say that something is true, when there is no evidence that it is.
I never said it was true (i.e.: that it is harming us), I said we don't know. I'd rather be safe than sorry, as it is having some impact (we just don't know whether harmful or not, or to what degree). As to evidence, there are cases of people who have some pretty extreme problems and reactions to RF... we just don't understand the how and why well yet.
You wrote this, which I take issue with:
”we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for).”
are you you willing to retract the definitive statement, then, and move it to an opinion?
melgross said: You wrote this, which I take issue with:
”we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for).”
are you you willing to retract the definitive statement, then, and move it to an opinion?
Simply put, no. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.
cf. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114 ; "At present, the
results for effects of RF fields on gene expression,
including HSPs and oncogenes, have been inconsistent." "Intermittent RF exposure has been shown to increase or decrease the expression of genes involved in multiple cellular functions (cytoskeleton, signal transduction path- ways, metabolism, etc.)" "... effects of RF on immune cell activity have been found. ... Further studies are required to determine the effect of RF fields on the immune system." "Studies on cellular RF effects are ongoing worldwide, but the published evidence regarding the effects is weak or does not allow a definite conclusion at a cellular level."
Or, here's the FCC's summary: "In general, while the possibility of "non-thermal" biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known."
melgross said: You wrote this, which I take issue with:
”we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for).”
are you you willing to retract the definitive statement, then, and move it to an opinion?
Simply put, no. I don't see anything wrong with what I said.
cf. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114 ; "At present, the
results for effects of RF fields on gene expression,
including HSPs and oncogenes, have been inconsistent." "Intermittent RF exposure has been shown to increase or decrease the expression of genes involved in multiple cellular functions (cytoskeleton, signal transduction path- ways, metabolism, etc.)" "... effects of RF on immune cell activity have been found. ... Further studies are required to determine the effect of RF fields on the immune system." "Studies on cellular RF effects are ongoing worldwide, but the published evidence regarding the effects is weak or does not allow a definite conclusion at a cellular level."
Or, here's the FCC's summary: "In general, while the possibility of "non-thermal" biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known."
Inconsistent usually means unexplainable. It also means that results may not be caused by the factors being tested.
Does nobody else realise they left out the most important feature? Apple Pay without the phone?
We know it knows when it's on the wrist, and disables Apple Pay via the watch once it's off the wrist.
Does nobody else realise they left out the most important feature? Apple Pay without the phone?
We know it knows when it's on the wrist, and disables Apple Pay via the watch once it's off the wrist.
What do you mean? "Apple Pay without the phone" has existed since the original Apple Watch.
1 hour.... which its pretty darn impressive, actually. So, if you want the watch to last all day, and make a call... maybe 20 min of call time? (That's like 2-3x what I was thinking, so I'm impressed.)
I don’t really enjoy talking on the phone, so this is a nice excuse to keep it short. “Okay, I don’t have much battery left. See you at lunch!”
dws-2 said: I don’t really enjoy talking on the phone, so this is a nice excuse to keep it short. “Okay, I don’t have much battery left. See you at lunch!”
For sure. I guess my worry is that's 1 hour of talk time, assuming your battery is fully charged and that's all you are doing. As I said, in reality it's probably more like 20 min on average, and would kind of suck if you're in an emergency and you get 15 seconds. I guess that's better than nothing, as they might get GPS coordinates?
It's a really great addition. I'm just wondering at what point the reality of this (stat buried on the battery page) will become obvious to the Dick Tracy wannabes. I see messages all of the place by people planning on leaving the phone home and going watch-only, who I don't think have any clue about this.
Comments
No, we don’t know that. Your saying so doesn’t magically make it true. We DO know that there is no impact from using cell phones of any kind, because several studies have shown that. There was also an actuarial study done that showed that, with millions of people in the tables, there has been no rise in cancer or any other problem since the use of cell phones began. That’s really pretty definitive.
2) It seems unlikely that there are LTE Watch customers that would fine an extra $60 over a year as too much. But if you need some arbitrary justification, the lack of an activation fee and 3 months free is your $60 right there. Fuck, if it wasn't already included I'd pay another $10 month just to get their servers to auto-forward cals to my Watch's HW ID and spoof my iPhone's phone number when calling out so people don't have to figure out which device to call me on.
that’s what bothers me.
we know why Apple raised the price. NAND prices are still rising. Manufacturers swallow those price rises until they no longer can do so. Apple figured out that they could no longer do so, so they raised the price. They’re not the only company doing so. SSD manufacturers have been raising prices as well.
i do’nt know about dumb phones, because I’ve never had one, and have no interest in one. So I do know about what matters to me, and, these days, most other people, but not that.
Youre strangly hostile to this. I can’t understand why. Since when are you opposed to people questioning what companies do?
Most businesses will charge what they think they can get away with. The problem here (at least in USA and especially Canada) is the lack of competition. There's no driver to keep prices in check, so the telcos are making insane profits (especially wired internet) that they wouldn't otherwise be able to.
That said, I don't so much think that $10 extra to add a device to your plan is the problem... it that your plan probably costs $50+ for one device, to begin with. If the phone where $30 and then adding the watch/tablet etc were another $10, that would seem quite reasonable. The problem is that we're having to pay $100/mo for this, and $100/mo for that, and then adding more hurt to the pile just gets people angry.
The point is that the studies were trying to examine cellular damage due to RF (I'm a ham radio guy and my initial degree was in electronic engineering), or measure cancer rates in cell usage populations, etc. What I'm saying is that it doesn't work like that. A ton of things impact gene expression, so you don't need to directly damage the DNA to have an impact. And, that impact might be downstream, not direct. It might not even be cancer we're talking about.
The system is WAY more complex than what those studies were taking into account. And, while I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I smart enough to listen to experts in the field and get a rough idea of what's going on.
”we do know there WILL be some impact (gene expression, cellular communication, etc. ... not just cell damage, which is what they currently test for).”
are you you willing to retract the definitive statement, then, and move it to an opinion?
cf. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6492114 ;
"At present, the results for effects of RF fields on gene expression, including HSPs and oncogenes, have been inconsistent."
"Intermittent RF exposure has been shown to increase or decrease the expression of genes involved in multiple cellular functions (cytoskeleton, signal transduction path- ways, metabolism, etc.)"
"... effects of RF on immune cell activity have been found. ... Further studies are required to determine the effect of RF fields on the immune system."
"Studies on cellular RF effects are ongoing worldwide, but the published evidence regarding the effects is weak or does not allow a definite conclusion at a cellular level."
Or, here's the FCC's summary: "In general, while the possibility of "non-thermal" biological effects may exist, whether or not such effects might indicate a human health hazard is not presently known."
in other words, it isn’t known.
It's a really great addition. I'm just wondering at what point the reality of this (stat buried on the battery page) will become obvious to the Dick Tracy wannabes. I see messages all of the place by people planning on leaving the phone home and going watch-only, who I don't think have any clue about this.