really? your reference says exactly the opposite.
that is very clear.
first you say it was (b) backed up, then you cite a source that says that they halted the backup procedure before it completed because hitachi said a backup was not necessary.
that means it was *not* backed up.
a backup from a couple of months ago is not a backup, even if they hadn't removed it.
I bet you love touching your 3.5mm jack.
on
I'm not arguing with any of that- I'm just saying any server-based sys= tem that doesn't let me also backup my data locally if I choose, is fundamentally flawed. Danger's accident-waiting-to-happen met Microsoft's best accident facilitators and disaster ensued. On any ot= her platform, (except maybe Android, and Microsoft's Kin, the latest versi= on of Sidekick) I could disconnect from the server completely, use locall= y stored data only, and ride out the outage.
If it won't let us do whatever we need or want -- I don't know one way or the other -- then for us it is fundamentally flawed, and we shouldn't use it.
But it's not fundamentally flawed for those who lack the skill or desire to backup themselves, which I'd guess(tm) is the great majority of the target market -- for them it's well-designed, and ultimately worked as intended.
Android devices are easily backed up by the user locally (to SD) or over the air. "There's an app for that." But I'd guess(tm) the great majority of Android users will never do that, relying instead on Google sync (which I think a better bet than Microsoft) and on luck.
Actually it is, because they is us.
Like it or not, that's how bankruptcy works. It was an asset of the estate. The same thing would have applied for *any* asset purchased but not yet fully paid for -- prior owners (owners no longer) of those assets become *creditors*, and without some sort of security agreement, just *unsecured* creditors (at the end of the line). I haven't read the case, but my guess(tm) is that the FCC was effectively claiming some sort of bankruptcy exemption, which is why it lost.
That example proves only how bankruptcy works, and the FCC might well have avoided the problem by writing a proper security agreement.
"Woop the 4 phone"??????
Please provide a translation to English.
whup the iPhone 4
backing up user data on android is a *new* feature coming in 2.2. it's mind-boggling how that was not included since day one.
relying on the user to manually do it means that it is likely to not be done. some aspects of android, such as gmail, are cloud based but that's not really a backup.
the iphone automatically backs everything up whenever it's synced. if the user upgrades the firmware or switches devices, everything is automatically restored.
Larry wrote on [Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:11 +0000]:
They should LEASE the airwaves, not sell them
If the user doesn't make a backup somehow, he will sooner or later regret it! That backup should preferably be on a device owned and controlled by the user. Still almost any backup is better than none!
Correct. From the majority decision:
the D. C. Circuit held, that the FCC?s revocation of its licenses was not in accordance with §525 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 525(a) provides, in relevant part: "[A] governmental unit may not ... revoke ... a license ... to ... a person that is ... a debtor under this title ... solely because such ... debtor ... has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title."
The sole dissenting opinion notes that the original terms of payment to the FCC included a clause specifically returning the licenses to the FCC in the event of non-payment:
It promised to pay the money under an installment plan. It agreed that its possession of the licenses was "conditioned upon full and timely payment," that failure to pay would result in the licenses? "automatic cancellation," that the Government would maintain a "fi[r]st lien on and continuing security interest" in the licenses, and that it would "not dispute" the Government?s "rights as a secured party."
Whichever point of view you favor, it doesn't mater. My point was that the FCC currently cannot do anything it pleases with the auctioned frequencies. In addition, the USA is a member of the ITU/WRC, which sets world wide usage for radio spectrum. While there are plenty of anomalies, the process of "harmonizing" the allocations and rules has been moving along nicely in the EU and slooooly in the USA. The USA is sufficiently isolated from the rest of the world (except for Canada and Mexico) on cellular frequencies that interference should not be an issue unless deployed for satellite service. Still, the ITU/WRC will need to investigate any interference potential, which will take some time.
They did have the proper security clauses in the auction terms. See above quotation as in "conditional upon full and timely payment". That is a standard clause in any such sales, leases, and rentals. (No pay, no play). However, the Supremes decided that bankruptcy law supercedes contract law. For a literal interpretation, this is correct.
For FCC licenses, there is also a performance clause, which demands the return of the licenses should the winner decide to do nothing within some time period (use it or lose it). However, that clause is being ignored by the FCC to avoid the inevitable court battle.
Rhetorical questions: If I buy on credit some real estate, some stock on margin, a new car, use my credit card wildly, and then declare bankruptcy, what happens to the property, stock, car, and junk? As I understand it, the bankruptcy administrator will declare those as being un-necessary for my continued survival, and return them to the creditors. It's not a difficult concept to appreciate. So, why didn't the government bankruptcy court for Nextwave not do the same thing with the licenses? At the same time (1997), Pocket Comm and DCR PCS went Chapter 11, and made a deal with the FCC for the return of the licenses in exchange for some of the deposit money. Why didn't Nextwave do the same?
there is an old saying in data processing circles, there are two types of users.. those that have lost data and those that will :)
Not a bad idea in theory, however, the pricing would need to be relatively perpetual (possibly allowing for growth tied to inflation, and requiring repricing if the spectrum's use changes, or it isn't being used), otherwise a mobile company might spend billions rolling out a national network only to have the FCC triple their spectrum rental prices and push them out of business.
Some might argue that selling a license to use a thing is not the same as selling the thing itself.
I was being kind.
It *does* hold onto calls better than my 3G. Even hand-held. But it holds onto them even-better if you don't hold it across the left side.
I realized that after I looked into it some more. I never had a 3GS, so I didn't know (and since I wasn't considering an upgrade to the 3GS after just a year or so, knowing that a newer phone would be out that would have more compelling reasons to upgrade, I didn't familarize myself with the 3GS in general). Nice feature in my opinion.
--Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles
Pan, let me see your peter.
and that makes sense. touching an antenna will change things. that's the laws of physics, and it's difficult to litigate those. :)
the fact that many users say that it works *better* puts a rather big dent in the claim that it's defective. nothing is perfect and obviously there are some issues. whether they can be addressed in software remains to be seen.
A product can be both better in one way *and* defective in another way at the same time.
yes it can but the lawsuits simply say it's defective and unfit to be sold. that's demonstrably false when some people say it's better than what they used to use.
why some people have problems and others don't is still not clear. some people *can't* make the bars change or drop calls no matter how they hold it.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.