Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57883
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.mobile.android |
| Subject | Re: charging policy |
| Date | 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ptfm8s$8n7$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <241120181633272332%nospam@nospam.invalid> <ptcv8a$2vm$2@dont-email.me> <251120180042495307%nospam@nospam.invalid> <pteptm$e77$2@dont-email.me> <I8kioKxeKv+bFwV8@255soft.uk> |
On 11/25/2018 12:06 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > 123456789 <12345@12345.com> writes: > It [fanboy/fanboi] may be descriptive, but I've never seen it used > other than > > in a negative manner Here are a few non-negative examples: New York Times Media reporters Brian Stelter and David Carr go all fan boy on the iPad and then take a breath... https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/media-decoded-a-video-discussion-of-the-ipad/?scp=2&sq=fanboy&st=cse Christian Science Monitor The machine is a good fit for the casual gamer – hardcore fanboys would obviously look elsewhere... https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Horizons/2010/0405/Nintendo-exec-scoffs-at-gaming-potential-of-Apple-iPad And then there is a Fanboy.com, a Macfanboy.com, a Sonyfanboy.com, a Nintendofanboy.com, and a Googlefanboy.com. with none of the titles denoting negative connotations. > I've never seen it used in an argument without thinking less of the > user, rather than the usee. Even when followed by a smiley? Even when it's true as described by the official Webster dictionary definition? > If nothing else, the spelling irritates me Both spellings are in the dictionary. I'll try to remember to use the other spelling next time so you will only be half as offended... ;) > I normally dislike people who attack their attacker with > words/phrases like ad > hominem So he attacked me?? I had no clue... > using "fanboi" was attacking him not his argument. I saw it as me KIDDING, thus my WINKY SMILEY. Now if I had called him an asshole...that would be an attack. But most here on Usenet can take a little occasional rough and tumble fun. It's certainly not the place for the overly sensitive. Anyway, enough with this overly sensitive BS and back to the show. > It [device slowing] might not motivate the undecided, but among those > who had . > decided to stay with the same company anyway, it might > make them upgrade sooner. Agreed. > Apple's claim was that they slowed older 'phones to prolong the > on-time, as they knew that, on average, their batteries _would_ have > reduced in capacity. BUT battery physics was NOT what caused the Apple debacle. > This would have been more believable if they'd (a) explained it in > advance (b) made it optional (even if it was the default). Apple needed to explain in advance AND make a switch to turn off the slowdown. Because obviously those with NEW batteries installed had no need for the slowdown. > Yes, the secrecy at best backfired on them, at worst might have been > dishonest. It seems incredulous to me that Apple engineers didn't foresee people having new batteries installed in their old iPhones and providing an off switch for them. Since I doubt the engineers are that dumb the only other likely logical conclusion is the dishonest one. > I don't think _that_ many iPhone users _would_ have replaced their > 'phone battery: since it's not easily replaceable Replacing a battery is a fraction of the cost of a new iPhone so likely many do it. Apple stores replace iPhone batteries. And there are at least five independent stores within a 10 mile range of me that replace iPhone batteries. YMMV. I replaced the wife's iPhone battery for $30 US (online) and it came with the installation tools. That iPhone was later given to a grandson and it's still working fine now over a year later.
Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
charging policy "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100
Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-21 17:36 +0000
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 19:02 +0100
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re:charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 18:53 +0100
Re: Re:charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:42 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 07:13 +0100
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 01:50 -0500
Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 09:15 +0100
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:09 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:18 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 17:26 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 12:54 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:26 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-23 09:28 +0000
"tl; dr" (was: Re: charging policy) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:28 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 10:22 -0700
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-22 18:45 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 13:47 -0500
Re: charging policy "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-22 20:40 +0000
Re: charging policy David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:29 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:30 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:26 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:13 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 19:52 +0000
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:40 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 21:48 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:06 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 22:09 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:23 -0500
Re: charging policy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-23 21:00 -0800
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 09:05 -0500
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 15:46 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 10:51 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 10:01 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 12:55 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 13:07 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 16:33 -0400
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 11:33 -0700
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-25 19:06 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 22:07 -0500
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 04:46 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 00:32 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 22:37 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:45 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 10:49 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-26 16:04 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 19:11 -0500
Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 20:14 +0000
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
Re: charging policy Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-26 10:36 +0200
Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:37 +0000
Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700
csiph-web