Too much nonsense here to be worth replying to it all, but one sentence jumped out at me while scrolling past: "It's his stated reason for stopping the giveaway of bumpers by 9/30."
You claim people aren't lying about him, while lying right there. He at no time said they were stopping the giveaway by 9/30. He said that they would give them away until that date, at which point they'd re-evaluate. To twist that into your version shows beyond doubt that you are incapable of passing objective comment. If you had any credibility it wenr up in smoke right there.
Have you tested the clear coat? As I posted elsewhere, I am not convinced it'd achieve the necessary impredance at radio frequencies. There may be such a product with low enough dielectric constant, but I don't know of one.
They were asked about that in the Q&A and apparently the date is just a line in the sand that they will be reviewing later with more data. Take from that what you will, I'm just the messenger;-)
Because a simple non-conductive coating wouldn't help. This is AC where impedance is more important than resistance, and across a simple non-conducting coating impedance varies inversely with frequency. So at phone frequency, it wouldn't do much.
Now you can get high impedance coatings, but I don't know exactly how high or what the cost/benefit ratio would be. My guess is too high or they would've a) done it ine first place or b) jumped at the chance to be seen to be doing something now.
It would make a small difference if the tape was thick enough; particularly if combined with a modified grasp, limiting the area in contact with the antenna-covered tape. But not enough to be called a workaround
This is one reason that the problem has been overblown—people who don't understand electrodynamics see an external antenna and assume that "shorting out" the gap is basically the same as they learned about DC circuits at school.
Now before I get flamed into next week, I am once again not claiming that the problem is not there—it is, and it's a real let-down on an otherwise nice piece of kit—but it not as catastrophic as has been portrayed. The "tape workaround" seems to be pure placebo.
I can't resist making reference to a great quote here, though: "The plural of anecdote is not data".
CR did suggest duct tape. Only problem is that duct tape doesn't do anything. Antenna + thin insulation + hand = large capacitor. Radio frequencies laugh at capacitors.
Blog posts on antennasys.com are well worth reading. I'm not saying the phone isn't flawed, but anyone who claims to have fixed their phone with tape clearly weren't all that impacted by it in the first place.
FWIW I tried this on my iPhone 4, and there was no discernable difference with or without tape.
Really? My observation is very much otherwise; perhaps we are each simply perceiving personal slights more keenly. But I don't think I'd be out of place suggesting that this particular thread had the anti-apple flag planted right from the get-go.
That said, I would condemn such an attitude no matter what product was being slated; the notion that choosing a product obliges you to take every opportunity to attack "the other" brand is downright childish. Personally I chose the iPhone long enough ago that it was arguably the best-in-class; I have stuck with it as I know the product, and have invested sufficiently in apps for it that migrating now didn't make sense. Perhaps next time my contract is up I may change my mind.
OK let's clear this up. Yes, some Apple fanboys will automatically hit out at any negative press against Apple. But a far greater number of Apple customers post only to respond to people making ridiculous and offensive statements about "stoopid Apple buyers" being "brain-washed sheep" and the like. These pathetic claims nearly always land before any fanboy/girl arrives on the scene.
So yes, you do often see bad-tempered pro-Apple posts in threads such as this; mainly from people fed up with being insulted by those who prefer a different brand.
So ask yourself: who is the more pathetic—those who respond to people repeatedly insulting their intelligence, or those so insecure that they feel the need to attack users of a competing phone brand?
I have seen it written somewhere that the proximity sensor issue affects only those who did a "restore from backup" to transfer their settings from an older phone. I can't verify this beyond stating that, having read this, I activated as a new phone, the transferred settings manually. I have had no proximity sensor problems.
Now before I get jumped on for defending Apple, let me just say that, yes, this is a problem, and they should sort it asap. But I figured I'd share a potential workaround in case it helps someone.
In fact it is ambiguous. Disregarding sex, "one was born on a Tuesday" could either mean "the set of my children that were born on a Tuesday is non-empty", or "the cardinality of the set of my children that were born on a Tuesday is one".
A logician (in his/her day-job) would assume the former; most people in conversation would assume the latter. The former (adding boy/girl back into the mix) yields the answer 13/27, as the article states; the latter 6/13.
This neglects statistical deviations on the days of the week, and the boy:girl ratio. Also one other complication alluded to in the (probably apocryphal) tale of the mathematician who, when asked if his new-born child was a boy or a girl replied "Almost certainly".
(Apologies if this was covered in TFA; it doesn't seem to like me.)
The thing is, if the "girl, boy" event differs from "boy, girl", then "_boy_, boy" must differ from "boy, _boy_".
This is incorrect; you can distinguish boy < girl from girl < boy by comparing the ages. Underlining one or the other doesn't alter the number of states for the system, boy < boy counts only once.
But if someone can put custom electronics in what is supposed to be a tamper-proof shell, people will blindly insert their cards and type their PINs. The issue is not one of terminal software security, but of hardware integrity.
Slashdot Mirror
Too much nonsense here to be worth replying to it all, but one sentence jumped out at me while scrolling past: "It's his stated reason for stopping the giveaway of bumpers by 9/30."
You claim people aren't lying about him, while lying right there. He at no time said they were stopping the giveaway by 9/30. He said that they would give them away until that date, at which point they'd re-evaluate. To twist that into your version shows beyond doubt that you are incapable of passing objective comment. If you had any credibility it wenr up in smoke right there.
Have you tested the clear coat? As I posted elsewhere, I am not convinced it'd achieve the necessary impredance at radio frequencies. There may be such a product with low enough dielectric constant, but I don't know of one.
They were asked about that in the Q&A and apparently the date is just a line in the sand that they will be reviewing later with more data. Take from that what you will, I'm just the messenger ;-)
Because a simple non-conductive coating wouldn't help. This is AC where impedance is more important than resistance, and across a simple non-conducting coating impedance varies inversely with frequency. So at phone frequency, it wouldn't do much. Now you can get high impedance coatings, but I don't know exactly how high or what the cost/benefit ratio would be. My guess is too high or they would've a) done it ine first place or b) jumped at the chance to be seen to be doing something now.
Wouldn't help. Would just turn the whole thing into a large capacitor, and at radio frequencies, the impedance it would offer would be slight. See http://bosonquest.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/iphone-4-versus-duct-tape/ for more.
D'oh! I did, of course, mean tape-covered antenna.
It would make a small difference if the tape was thick enough; particularly if combined with a modified grasp, limiting the area in contact with the antenna-covered tape. But not enough to be called a workaround
This is one reason that the problem has been overblown—people who don't understand electrodynamics see an external antenna and assume that "shorting out" the gap is basically the same as they learned about DC circuits at school.
Now before I get flamed into next week, I am once again not claiming that the problem is not there—it is, and it's a real let-down on an otherwise nice piece of kit—but it not as catastrophic as has been portrayed. The "tape workaround" seems to be pure placebo.
I can't resist making reference to a great quote here, though: "The plural of anecdote is not data".
CR did suggest duct tape. Only problem is that duct tape doesn't do anything. Antenna + thin insulation + hand = large capacitor. Radio frequencies laugh at capacitors.
Blog posts on antennasys.com are well worth reading. I'm not saying the phone isn't flawed, but anyone who claims to have fixed their phone with tape clearly weren't all that impacted by it in the first place.
FWIW I tried this on my iPhone 4, and there was no discernable difference with or without tape.
Really? My observation is very much otherwise; perhaps we are each simply perceiving personal slights more keenly. But I don't think I'd be out of place suggesting that this particular thread had the anti-apple flag planted right from the get-go.
That said, I would condemn such an attitude no matter what product was being slated; the notion that choosing a product obliges you to take every opportunity to attack "the other" brand is downright childish. Personally I chose the iPhone long enough ago that it was arguably the best-in-class; I have stuck with it as I know the product, and have invested sufficiently in apps for it that migrating now didn't make sense. Perhaps next time my contract is up I may change my mind.
Tape over the gap makes a large capacitor. Capacitors are effectively negligible barriers to radio frequency oscillations.
Tape over the gap does not help. I have personally tested this to be sure - no difference.
OK let's clear this up. Yes, some Apple fanboys will automatically hit out at any negative press against Apple. But a far greater number of Apple customers post only to respond to people making ridiculous and offensive statements about "stoopid Apple buyers" being "brain-washed sheep" and the like. These pathetic claims nearly always land before any fanboy/girl arrives on the scene.
So yes, you do often see bad-tempered pro-Apple posts in threads such as this; mainly from people fed up with being insulted by those who prefer a different brand.
So ask yourself: who is the more pathetic—those who respond to people repeatedly insulting their intelligence, or those so insecure that they feel the need to attack users of a competing phone brand?
I have seen it written somewhere that the proximity sensor issue affects only those who did a "restore from backup" to transfer their settings from an older phone. I can't verify this beyond stating that, having read this, I activated as a new phone, the transferred settings manually. I have had no proximity sensor problems. Now before I get jumped on for defending Apple, let me just say that, yes, this is a problem, and they should sort it asap. But I figured I'd share a potential workaround in case it helps someone.
In fact it is ambiguous. Disregarding sex, "one was born on a Tuesday" could either mean "the set of my children that were born on a Tuesday is non-empty", or "the cardinality of the set of my children that were born on a Tuesday is one".
A logician (in his/her day-job) would assume the former; most people in conversation would assume the latter. The former (adding boy/girl back into the mix) yields the answer 13/27, as the article states; the latter 6/13.
This neglects statistical deviations on the days of the week, and the boy:girl ratio. Also one other complication alluded to in the (probably apocryphal) tale of the mathematician who, when asked if his new-born child was a boy or a girl replied "Almost certainly".
(Apologies if this was covered in TFA; it doesn't seem to like me.)
The thing is, if the "girl, boy" event differs from "boy, girl", then "_boy_, boy" must differ from "boy, _boy_".
This is incorrect; you can distinguish boy < girl from girl < boy by comparing the ages. Underlining one or the other doesn't alter the number of states for the system, boy < boy counts only once.
But if someone can put custom electronics in what is supposed to be a tamper-proof shell, people will blindly insert their cards and type their PINs. The issue is not one of terminal software security, but of hardware integrity.