There's nothing elegant or better about swapping a battery just to get more battery life.
I think we have hit the main issue.. You are looking for elegant in a cell phone where most of us really just want utility and a bit of cool. You want it to look good, we want it to work. I'm betting you replace your phone often too, where my Note 4 is about 3 years old and it replaced a 4 year old phone....
So I think we know why you picked that iDevice over the other options out there.. When it comes to elegance, Apple is the choice, just not so much for utility or value...So if elegant what you are willing to spend your $$ on, have at it.
The idea of opening your phone to the elements just to get more battery power seems insane to me.
I work on messy, dusty, wet, and generally gross film sets.
There are definitely far more elegant solutions out there than replaceable batteries.
I have the same option available to me should I choose. In fact I have a portable power pack too that I carry around sometimes for my iPhone burdened friends, or for the times when I don't wish to open the phone to the elements, like on a camping trip. So I have the best of both worlds. Plus, I *could* get extra capacity in a case/cover for it, Not to mention that Samsung has an "IQ" "charging pad" option for my phone that snaps in behind the battery cover. I don't have it, but it's available. It's NOT available for that iPhone, at least not in a way that mounts internally.
And that's really my point. My Note 4 gives me more options than your iPhone....PLUS, changing my battery requires ZERO in the way of tools. I've changed iPhone batteries in the 5 and 6 series and it's not nearly as easy. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but I like having the flexibility of multiple options...
Unlikely. Deep space is extremely cold, too cold for the electronics, especially the batteries, to survive unless kept warm. Best we can hope for is to go back and take a look on the return trip and see how the two devices did physically.
And sue the people who told you where to drill when the phone get's broken too...
Am I the only one who saw the news stories where the idiots who actually did this where trying to sue the producer of the videos claiming you could do this? I was laughing pretty hard until I realized they where actually SERIOUS....
Which is why I have an Android based Note 4.... It's not that the battery last a long time, being old it doesn't usually make 10 hours actually, but I can carry a spare charged battery which I can insert ANYTIME I choose and presto, I get another 10 hours. My "battery life" is governed by how many batteries I can carry (which is one spare that fits in my wallet case), not how much capacity is built into the phone.
It's not that I'm opposed to the Apple stuff.... But I like the endless capacity I get by having spare batteries that I can switch out on the go, so I never have to worry about not having any power when I'm out and about.
Well, now, cranking up your WiFi hotspot is NOT a legally protected activity nor does it put you in a protected class (Unless you want to argue it makes you part of some racial group or something). WiFi hot spots are already banned at other places and times (like on airplanes by the FAA). Way to go for the deflection...So around the bush again we go..
This facility was within it's rights to ban WiFi hot spots from entering or being turned on, just like it can ban guns, knives, glass containers, alcohol, food, or even bottles of water from coming thought the door. There is no legal protected right that allows you to cry foul for any of this. Don't like it, leave. Also, this legally protected class business does NOT apply to non-commercial properties (such as my home) where ANYBODY can be denied access for ANY reason I choose. If you show up in my house uninvited where I live, I can even shoot you. Public businesses have a few more restrictions, but they too can limit access to their facilities to say "Members Only" or place other restrictions/conditions upon access as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of a protected class.
In this case, there was no "protected class" argument to be made, so you are just being evasive.
You sir just set up a straw man. I never said she intended to pass classified information. But I do think she intended to break the FOIA laws.
For the classified stuff, What I assume happened is Clinton and her aids got sloppy and *somebody* started putting classified stuff in their emails when they tried to "talk around" the information. Then, despite knowing better, everybody just went with it, including Clinton herself. Gross negligence ensued, where even content WITH classified markings (meaning stuff was directly copied from classified sources) got sent in the clear. But nobody cared, included Clinton, about the risks to national security, they just kept sending this stuff.. Now she wants us to believe that she didn't know what was happening, well I'm not buying that. She'd have to be pretty stupid for that to be true, and she's anything but stupid.
Oh, and then there is the whole "having a private server for government work" legal issue to contend with. It violated the regulations about record retention and fulfillment of FOIA requests. Clinton KNEW about this issue, that her "private" server was not allowed (after all she admonished one of her ambassadors for doing this very thing) . But again, she didn't care about the law or State Department regulations, why she's a Clinton and SOS....
Finally there is the destruction of evidence issue. I don't think that's going away anytime soon, nor do I think it's been fully investigated yet. The ONLY thing the FBI let her off the hook for was the classified information part of this, the rest is still pending and could come up at any time to bite her..
Show me where he passed classified information though his private address..... Then we can talk..
I guess you are OK with Bush's private E-mails? No? So Clinton has NO EXCUSE here... You say so yourself if you want to hold this issue up as an example of what not to do..
I wonder if Amazon will pass along any savings to customers?
Amazon? No, they won't. Plus, they will drive the other carriers into higher costs which will discourage other competitors to Amazon by raising their shipping costs. It's a win win for Amazon, which is a loose loose for customers.
Seriously, loosing the USPS won't be a good thing in the long run.
It's easy to overlook all the good things the USPS does for this country and it's economic system because we have all grown up with the mail arriving 6 days a week, rain or shine, for nearly nothing. First class postage is still under $1 for a letter picked up and delivered door to door, usually in a few days. It's a huge bargain if you ask me. Priority Mail goes for $4 and gets there in less than 3 days. This kind of service keeps this economy going. I understand that the USPS isn't as necessary as it once was, and that's part of it's financial problems, but I believe it's still a necessary function.
What's UPS going to charge you for a letter? $10? $5? And then they just drop the letter off at the local post office for delivery to your door usually. Same with FedEx. DHL (back from bankruptcy I suppose) doesn't deliver to residential customers and I haven't seen their prices. USPS delivery is a bargain and throwing out all that will only hurt us all.
Perhaps we could scale back delivery days and save labor costs. Say three days a week to the door and only weekday delivery to P.O. boxes? That would drop about half their labor costs, keep service levels high for those who need it, and perhaps allow the USPS to get back to even instead of loosing money all the time.
Gee, I will stick to my perspective while you keep changing yours...
First they where selling licenses, but that didn't work with the facts so you dropped that. Now they where denying access to part of the spectrum, which isn't true either...
They where NOT preventing anybody from operating on any spectrum they wished, you could walk outside of the venue and crank up your WiFi hotspot anytime you wished. Private property owners have the right to allow or deny any activity on their property they choose, including restricting if, when and where you may operate your cell phone with the wireless option turned on. Heck, they can even do things like refusing to allow you to enter carrying a firearm, a camera or recording device, carrying candy, drinks or food into the venue. They can enforce a dress code, make you wear shoes and a shirt, make you buy a ticket and/or enter into a contract which governs what you will and won't be allowed to do. How's saying "You can bring that cell phone in, but you cannot set up a private hotspot" not allowed? They could just ban them outright along with cell phones and any other devices they didn't want inside the venue if they wanted after all.
If we don't have such property rights in this country, then why do we call it "private property"?
Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?
I think not. What they did was reasonable and it wasn't like all the reporters didn't know what the deal was. Not to mention Hofstra was only following the contracted agreements they had with the Presidential Debate commission....
My guess is somebody got a bee in their bonnet about something and thought they'd get their 5 min of fame out of it. After all, it was pretty likely all the reporters who had to pay the $200 where a bit miffed at the cost, not knowing how much this kind of thing actually costs to set up, and would love to be in the news themselves by reporting on this. Journalistic standards have sunk that low... If you cannot find a story, just make one.
Oh sure it is.. Private property owners are given great latitude in controlling who may access their property and under what terms they allow access. For instance the venue owner may make the following rule:
You may bring in your phone, but you must declare it and it must remain in airplane mode at all times on the premises. (which is actually MORE restrictive than what happened here)
Then the owners can legally enforce that rule by searching people entering, refusing to allow anybody who doesn't agree to these terms and further remove anybody (along with their device) should they violate the rule. There is nothing illegal about this as long as they don't start jamming using RF emitting devices...
No licenses where being sold, and the $200 was for access to the WiFi network, paying for the service. Apart from violating the TOS I have with my provider, I can sell wifi service to you....
You guys are conflating is two separate things.... The "selling" of WiFi service (which is 100% legal), and the desire of the venue to coordinate the use of both licensed and part 15 intentional emitters within the confines of the venue which is legal too.
But hey, don't let me get in your way of a good story line...
I was thinking that $200 was a bit too low, given the transitory nature of the setup, use 3 days and move on part of this... Network engineers on travel don't come cheap you know.
You cannot emit RF to jam signals on your property, but finding an RF emitter and ejecting it (along with the owner) from the premises is permitted. You get bonus points for spelling out these terms in a signed contract too...
Which takes time and $$ to do. So what's in it for the Cell company? Not much, unless the venue offers to pay for the increased service, which, if I could venture a guess, isn't high on the "need to spend money on this" list, given that this was a one time thing. Plus, it can be a *real* headache to try and add coverage for a few thousand handsets without making trouble for yourself by putting the cells to close together where they overlap too much and cause a bunch of thrashing as phones keep switching cells to be attached too.
I've been to large and not so large venues that had horrible cell service when full of people but where fine when empty, usually it didn't matter because being on the phone wasn't the point of being there. Where I'm sure the cell companies would LOVE to collect some fees and provide better service to the venue, usually the venues don't care because the customers don't care, if the entertainment is good.
You don't think a system at a university university with over 10k students streaming video over youtube, Facebook, netflix, etc, could handle a bunch of tweeting reporters?
No, I don't think the CELL system would have handled the increased load unless the venue was used often at this capacity...
Plus, doing WiFi for 3,000 in a small building is a lit more complex than it seems to the casual user...
But that's not what we are really talking about in this article. I get the feeling they are mixing up a couple of things that don't really go together.
The "blocking" that was illegal uses RF to kill a rouge access point, intentionally interfering with a licensed use of the spectrum the FCC is tasked to regulate..... This is squarely in the wheel house of the FCC, who's job includes protecting the licensed users of spectrum from interference.
What was done here is put a requirement in a contract that required you to turn off your RF emitters carried into the facility unless the facility engineer approved it's use. This is 100% legal and the FCC doesn't have anything authority to regulate this. In fact, this is commonly referred to as "frequency coordination" and given the large number of possible devices showing up, makes perfect sense to me. You don't want some rouge RF device getting turned on and interfering with Lester's Wireless microphone in the middle of a question. So, you make it part of your contract that ALL RF emitting devices are subject to inspection and approval before they are allowed into the venue and turned on.
So the two cases are not the same and the venue operator has broken no laws.
Spectrum is expensive and a finite resource for practical purposes and you have to coordinate who's using which ones where and when to avoid interfering with each other. You cannot just decide, say to use the frequencies dedicated to GPS use for high speed long distance data transmission, without creating an issue for the existing spectrum users.
By and large, this is exactly why the FCC and the ITU exist, to manage the spectrum space..
When you have a large group of people sucking data on their cell phones in an area where they don't usually congregate, it's likely NOBODY will get ANY data to start with. Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances and where they sometimes build in extra capacity in places where large crowds tend to gather regularly, they usually dump the bandwidth available to data into carrying voice as the crowd grows.
So... Even if you had turned on your cell data, it's unlikely to have been very useful once the crowd started to show up and post on their facebook and twitter feeds.
So, pay up if you want WiFi that's going to work you fools.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing elegant or better about swapping a battery just to get more battery life.
I think we have hit the main issue.. You are looking for elegant in a cell phone where most of us really just want utility and a bit of cool. You want it to look good, we want it to work. I'm betting you replace your phone often too, where my Note 4 is about 3 years old and it replaced a 4 year old phone....
So I think we know why you picked that iDevice over the other options out there.. When it comes to elegance, Apple is the choice, just not so much for utility or value...So if elegant what you are willing to spend your $$ on, have at it.
The idea of opening your phone to the elements just to get more battery power seems insane to me.
I work on messy, dusty, wet, and generally gross film sets.
There are definitely far more elegant solutions out there than replaceable batteries.
I have the same option available to me should I choose. In fact I have a portable power pack too that I carry around sometimes for my iPhone burdened friends, or for the times when I don't wish to open the phone to the elements, like on a camping trip. So I have the best of both worlds. Plus, I *could* get extra capacity in a case/cover for it, Not to mention that Samsung has an "IQ" "charging pad" option for my phone that snaps in behind the battery cover. I don't have it, but it's available. It's NOT available for that iPhone, at least not in a way that mounts internally.
And that's really my point. My Note 4 gives me more options than your iPhone....PLUS, changing my battery requires ZERO in the way of tools. I've changed iPhone batteries in the 5 and 6 series and it's not nearly as easy. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but I like having the flexibility of multiple options...
Unlikely. Deep space is extremely cold, too cold for the electronics, especially the batteries, to survive unless kept warm. Best we can hope for is to go back and take a look on the return trip and see how the two devices did physically.
And I can just add one myself.
And sue the people who told you where to drill when the phone get's broken too...
Am I the only one who saw the news stories where the idiots who actually did this where trying to sue the producer of the videos claiming you could do this? I was laughing pretty hard until I realized they where actually SERIOUS....
Which is why I have an Android based Note 4.... It's not that the battery last a long time, being old it doesn't usually make 10 hours actually, but I can carry a spare charged battery which I can insert ANYTIME I choose and presto, I get another 10 hours. My "battery life" is governed by how many batteries I can carry (which is one spare that fits in my wallet case), not how much capacity is built into the phone.
It's not that I'm opposed to the Apple stuff.... But I like the endless capacity I get by having spare batteries that I can switch out on the go, so I never have to worry about not having any power when I'm out and about.
Netflix is TOO much....
Well, now, cranking up your WiFi hotspot is NOT a legally protected activity nor does it put you in a protected class (Unless you want to argue it makes you part of some racial group or something). WiFi hot spots are already banned at other places and times (like on airplanes by the FAA). Way to go for the deflection...So around the bush again we go..
This facility was within it's rights to ban WiFi hot spots from entering or being turned on, just like it can ban guns, knives, glass containers, alcohol, food, or even bottles of water from coming thought the door. There is no legal protected right that allows you to cry foul for any of this. Don't like it, leave. Also, this legally protected class business does NOT apply to non-commercial properties (such as my home) where ANYBODY can be denied access for ANY reason I choose. If you show up in my house uninvited where I live, I can even shoot you. Public businesses have a few more restrictions, but they too can limit access to their facilities to say "Members Only" or place other restrictions/conditions upon access as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of a protected class.
In this case, there was no "protected class" argument to be made, so you are just being evasive.
You sir just set up a straw man. I never said she intended to pass classified information. But I do think she intended to break the FOIA laws.
For the classified stuff, What I assume happened is Clinton and her aids got sloppy and *somebody* started putting classified stuff in their emails when they tried to "talk around" the information. Then, despite knowing better, everybody just went with it, including Clinton herself. Gross negligence ensued, where even content WITH classified markings (meaning stuff was directly copied from classified sources) got sent in the clear. But nobody cared, included Clinton, about the risks to national security, they just kept sending this stuff.. Now she wants us to believe that she didn't know what was happening, well I'm not buying that. She'd have to be pretty stupid for that to be true, and she's anything but stupid.
Oh, and then there is the whole "having a private server for government work" legal issue to contend with. It violated the regulations about record retention and fulfillment of FOIA requests. Clinton KNEW about this issue, that her "private" server was not allowed (after all she admonished one of her ambassadors for doing this very thing) . But again, she didn't care about the law or State Department regulations, why she's a Clinton and SOS....
Finally there is the destruction of evidence issue. I don't think that's going away anytime soon, nor do I think it's been fully investigated yet. The ONLY thing the FBI let her off the hook for was the classified information part of this, the rest is still pending and could come up at any time to bite her..
Show me where he passed classified information though his private address..... Then we can talk..
I guess you are OK with Bush's private E-mails? No? So Clinton has NO EXCUSE here... You say so yourself if you want to hold this issue up as an example of what not to do..
I wonder if Amazon will pass along any savings to customers?
Amazon? No, they won't. Plus, they will drive the other carriers into higher costs which will discourage other competitors to Amazon by raising their shipping costs. It's a win win for Amazon, which is a loose loose for customers.
Seriously, loosing the USPS won't be a good thing in the long run.
It's easy to overlook all the good things the USPS does for this country and it's economic system because we have all grown up with the mail arriving 6 days a week, rain or shine, for nearly nothing. First class postage is still under $1 for a letter picked up and delivered door to door, usually in a few days. It's a huge bargain if you ask me. Priority Mail goes for $4 and gets there in less than 3 days. This kind of service keeps this economy going. I understand that the USPS isn't as necessary as it once was, and that's part of it's financial problems, but I believe it's still a necessary function.
What's UPS going to charge you for a letter? $10? $5? And then they just drop the letter off at the local post office for delivery to your door usually. Same with FedEx. DHL (back from bankruptcy I suppose) doesn't deliver to residential customers and I haven't seen their prices. USPS delivery is a bargain and throwing out all that will only hurt us all.
Perhaps we could scale back delivery days and save labor costs. Say three days a week to the door and only weekday delivery to P.O. boxes? That would drop about half their labor costs, keep service levels high for those who need it, and perhaps allow the USPS to get back to even instead of loosing money all the time.
Gee, I will stick to my perspective while you keep changing yours...
First they where selling licenses, but that didn't work with the facts so you dropped that. Now they where denying access to part of the spectrum, which isn't true either...
They where NOT preventing anybody from operating on any spectrum they wished, you could walk outside of the venue and crank up your WiFi hotspot anytime you wished. Private property owners have the right to allow or deny any activity on their property they choose, including restricting if, when and where you may operate your cell phone with the wireless option turned on. Heck, they can even do things like refusing to allow you to enter carrying a firearm, a camera or recording device, carrying candy, drinks or food into the venue. They can enforce a dress code, make you wear shoes and a shirt, make you buy a ticket and/or enter into a contract which governs what you will and won't be allowed to do. How's saying "You can bring that cell phone in, but you cannot set up a private hotspot" not allowed? They could just ban them outright along with cell phones and any other devices they didn't want inside the venue if they wanted after all.
If we don't have such property rights in this country, then why do we call it "private property"?
Hofstra could have handled this better, or the Debate Commission could have. The method they chose is subject to some criticism, isn't it?
I think not. What they did was reasonable and it wasn't like all the reporters didn't know what the deal was. Not to mention Hofstra was only following the contracted agreements they had with the Presidential Debate commission....
My guess is somebody got a bee in their bonnet about something and thought they'd get their 5 min of fame out of it. After all, it was pretty likely all the reporters who had to pay the $200 where a bit miffed at the cost, not knowing how much this kind of thing actually costs to set up, and would love to be in the news themselves by reporting on this. Journalistic standards have sunk that low... If you cannot find a story, just make one.
Oh sure it is.. Private property owners are given great latitude in controlling who may access their property and under what terms they allow access. For instance the venue owner may make the following rule:
You may bring in your phone, but you must declare it and it must remain in airplane mode at all times on the premises. (which is actually MORE restrictive than what happened here)
Then the owners can legally enforce that rule by searching people entering, refusing to allow anybody who doesn't agree to these terms and further remove anybody (along with their device) should they violate the rule. There is nothing illegal about this as long as they don't start jamming using RF emitting devices...
No licenses where being sold, and the $200 was for access to the WiFi network, paying for the service. Apart from violating the TOS I have with my provider, I can sell wifi service to you....
You guys are conflating is two separate things.... The "selling" of WiFi service (which is 100% legal), and the desire of the venue to coordinate the use of both licensed and part 15 intentional emitters within the confines of the venue which is legal too.
But hey, don't let me get in your way of a good story line...
I was thinking that $200 was a bit too low, given the transitory nature of the setup, use 3 days and move on part of this... Network engineers on travel don't come cheap you know.
If you visit my house and your part 15 device interferes with mine, guess who shuts off their device or leaves?
THIS!
You cannot emit RF to jam signals on your property, but finding an RF emitter and ejecting it (along with the owner) from the premises is permitted. You get bonus points for spelling out these terms in a signed contract too...
Which takes time and $$ to do. So what's in it for the Cell company? Not much, unless the venue offers to pay for the increased service, which, if I could venture a guess, isn't high on the "need to spend money on this" list, given that this was a one time thing. Plus, it can be a *real* headache to try and add coverage for a few thousand handsets without making trouble for yourself by putting the cells to close together where they overlap too much and cause a bunch of thrashing as phones keep switching cells to be attached too.
I've been to large and not so large venues that had horrible cell service when full of people but where fine when empty, usually it didn't matter because being on the phone wasn't the point of being there. Where I'm sure the cell companies would LOVE to collect some fees and provide better service to the venue, usually the venues don't care because the customers don't care, if the entertainment is good.
You don't think a system at a university university with over 10k students streaming video over youtube, Facebook, netflix, etc, could handle a bunch of tweeting reporters?
No, I don't think the CELL system would have handled the increased load unless the venue was used often at this capacity...
Plus, doing WiFi for 3,000 in a small building is a lit more complex than it seems to the casual user...
But that's not what we are really talking about in this article. I get the feeling they are mixing up a couple of things that don't really go together.
The "blocking" that was illegal uses RF to kill a rouge access point, intentionally interfering with a licensed use of the spectrum the FCC is tasked to regulate..... This is squarely in the wheel house of the FCC, who's job includes protecting the licensed users of spectrum from interference.
What was done here is put a requirement in a contract that required you to turn off your RF emitters carried into the facility unless the facility engineer approved it's use. This is 100% legal and the FCC doesn't have anything authority to regulate this. In fact, this is commonly referred to as "frequency coordination" and given the large number of possible devices showing up, makes perfect sense to me. You don't want some rouge RF device getting turned on and interfering with Lester's Wireless microphone in the middle of a question. So, you make it part of your contract that ALL RF emitting devices are subject to inspection and approval before they are allowed into the venue and turned on.
So the two cases are not the same and the venue operator has broken no laws.
Which frequencies are you suggesting they use?
Spectrum is expensive and a finite resource for practical purposes and you have to coordinate who's using which ones where and when to avoid interfering with each other. You cannot just decide, say to use the frequencies dedicated to GPS use for high speed long distance data transmission, without creating an issue for the existing spectrum users.
By and large, this is exactly why the FCC and the ITU exist, to manage the spectrum space..
When you have a large group of people sucking data on their cell phones in an area where they don't usually congregate, it's likely NOBODY will get ANY data to start with. Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances and where they sometimes build in extra capacity in places where large crowds tend to gather regularly, they usually dump the bandwidth available to data into carrying voice as the crowd grows.
So... Even if you had turned on your cell data, it's unlikely to have been very useful once the crowd started to show up and post on their facebook and twitter feeds.
So, pay up if you want WiFi that's going to work you fools.
Just before they upgrade my token string and tin can coupler...
Wasn't clear from TFA if this would work on Cat 5e, or if Cat 6 is required.
10Gig works just fine over Cat5, albeit at a shorter maximum distance than the 180 feet, so why wouldn't Cat5 work just fine at 2.5GB?