Recent Comments:
AT&T sues Verizon over 'there's a map for that' ads {Engadget}
Nov 3rd 2009 4:30PM Those aren't legal arguments; those are marketing spins on legal papers filed in court.
The legal papers tell the real story. The two maps definitely show the two companies' 3G networks. But the legend for the *REST* of the map is missing. The Verizon map (the big red one) does indeed show their 3G coverage. But they use white on their map to show areas where there is no coverage at all. The AT&T map shows 3G coverage only, and then vast swaths of the country in white space. Now comparing apples to apples on the two maps, Verizon is intimating that once you leave an AT&T blue space, you have *no coverage at all.*
And yes, according to surveys taken after viewing the commercials, that's exactly what people are taking away from those ads: once you leave the blue area, you can't use your 3G phone at all. If they did the maps in two different colors to show 3G, 2G, and no service, that would be fine, but they are essentially passing on the wrong message. They are intimating that there is no coverage outside of AT&T's 3G areas, which is not true. That amounts to a false advertising claim.
So let's put it into perspective:
- AT&T's 3G coverage hits most major metropolitan areas.
- Verizon's EV-DO network is bigger than AT&T's.
- HSPDA is faster than EV-DO, so the fact that you have EV-DO coverage in more areas than AT&T has HSPDA coverage is also not an apples-to-apples comparison, even though they are both considered "3G".
- When you leave a 3G area, your 3G phone runs on 2G. Regardless of what the ad appears to claim, it still works.
All that said, AT&T has a valid complaint. And no, I ain't no AT&T fanboy. I'd go back to VZW in a second if my company didn't issue phones.
US government lays out cash for wall-based, in-home 'smart meters' {Engadget}
Oct 27th 2009 5:49PM However, the money to generate the jobs is coming from taxpayer money. Thus, it's not "new income," and is a net zero gain. It's actually a loss since the money is going away from one person and going to another person's salary.
If this money was being generated outside of taxes, it would be something completely different, and the job gains would actually be worth something.
These are not true gains.
US government lays out cash for wall-based, in-home 'smart meters' {Engadget}
Oct 27th 2009 5:43PM While the tech may not do it now, the eventual idea is to have the system work in reverse: the government can keep tabs on your electric use and regulate your appliances and furnaces and air conditioners and shut them off when they use too much juice.
It's not science-fiction, folks. This scheme was already tried once:
http://www.ucan.org/energy/electricity/california_energy_commission_wants_give_government_control_over_your_thermostat_during_emergency_events
Believe me, while they don't say it in this press release, version 2.0 of the meters will have the governmental remote-controls built in. Hello Big Brother...
Ion propulsion engine could take you to Mars in 39 days {Engadget}
Oct 20th 2009 10:48AM Ugh. Explosively expanding gas. I had that. No fun at all.
Viper Security launches SmartStart iPhone app for well-appointed whips {Engadget}
Oct 13th 2009 5:42PM I think the most useful features are the alarm notification, the unauthorized vehicle movement notification, and the remote engine kill switch. Those are the features that prove more useful. I know some alarm keyfobs already do this, but you have to be in range (anywhere between 50 and 100 meters) in order for the car signal to reach the keyfob. Since this communicates over GSM (thus the subscription) to the phone, you can be anywhere.
And from someone who lives in a cold climate and has used remote starters before, you normally need to be in visual range of the vehicle when you start it so that you can see your parking lights come on to be assured that it started. If this system provides two-way communication (i.e. you press the button, then 10 secs later system responds that vehicle is running), this would make the remote starter infinitely more useful.
Sadly the price is a little too steep right now, but the idea is spot on.
Japanese company to sell Swine Flu-resistant suit -- because nobody wants their clothes to get sick {Engadget}
Oct 8th 2009 11:50AM Not that I want to stoop to your level, but for anyone who may have actually *read* the crap you posted, let me be the first to correct it.
First of all, it takes a special level of moron to actually believe anything you said. I don't agree with the President, but I don't believe for a second that Obama is trying to throw me into a FEMA camp -- where would he come up with the money? I'm sure "Son of Stimulus" would go over like a lead balloon...
Second, I haven't had the H1N1 vaccine (technically none of us have yet, since it's not out for general distribution nationwide yet), and me and my kids got H1N1, we were sick for a week, and we're better. It's a flu. Quit your bitchin'.
Now back to the original post (or, finally returning to topic), how does making a suit that kills the virus even remotely useful? The virus is transmitted through the air into your mouth, eyes, or nose, or by your contact of the virus and then transferring it to your mouth, eyes, or nose. So all the vulnerable virus entry methods and points (hands, mouth, eyes, and nose) are still completely unprotected after your $580 purchase.
Fail.
Make webpages more printable with The Printliminator {Download Squad}
Oct 8th 2009 10:42AM I'm going to have to disagree. This is a real handy tool; much easier than a copy and paste into another app. Good find, thank you.
Cowon's UM1 thumb drive for lovers, stalkers {Engadget}
Oct 1st 2009 10:31AM Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the little drops of water all over the publicity photo implies that it *is* waterproof. Replace the "Don't Forget Me" with something more surfer-ish (I was thinking colors, not words), and voila, you have your surfer necklace.
Taser International's six-shot Shockwave demonstration {Engadget}
Sep 30th 2009 10:04PM Non-lethal is the correct term.
Firearms are lethal force because firearms are designed to kill, make no mistake about it.
Tasers are non-lethal, because they are specifically designed to not kill. You can show how a Taser is manufactured to operate in such a way as to cause incapacitation and not death.
The fact that non-lethal force sometimes causes death doesn't make it lethal force.
If someone were deathly allergic to peppers, and you used pepper spray on them and they died, would you consider pepper spray lethal force? No, because pepper spray is not designed to kill.
If you overdosed on Tylenol and died, would they consider Tylenol lethal medication? No, because it is not designed to kill.
The term lethal vs. non-lethal is meant to distinguish the design and intention of the force, not its unintended outcomes.
Audiovox integrates PlayStation 2 into rear-seat entertainment system {Engadget}
Sep 23rd 2009 2:57PM Are you KIDDING? Do you see the people they are catering to? They're going to sell like hotcakes! They won't be able to make enough!
