Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money they're
getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet screen, usable
only when you have WiFi available, & a portable music player? Or is
the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful" that a usable phone is
unnecessary?
Bill Kraski wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> No phone calls, but the iPod and WiFi allegedly work without
>> activating using
>>
>> the hack published online.
>>
>> http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money they're
> getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet screen, usable
> only when you have WiFi available, & a portable music player? Or is
> the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful" that a usable phone is
> unnecessary?
>
If memory serves, certain people would spend $20 for a paste-on cell
antenna so they could look cool. These are same people who now spend
$$$ to pimp their bling cars with bling sound systems while wearing
bling jewelry, and now bling phones. There are enough of these idiots
to keep the scammers happy, and the rest of us laughing into next week.
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:13:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>Bill Kraski wrote:
>> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>> No phone calls, but the iPod and WiFi allegedly work without
>>> activating using
>>>
>>> the hack published online.
>>>
>>> http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money they're
>> getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet screen, usable
>> only when you have WiFi available, & a portable music player? Or is
>> the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful" that a usable phone is
>> unnecessary?
>>
>
>
>If memory serves, certain people would spend $20 for a paste-on cell
>antenna so they could look cool. These are same people who now spend
>$$$ to pimp their bling cars with bling sound systems while wearing
>bling jewelry, and now bling phones. There are enough of these idiots
>to keep the scammers happy, and the rest of us laughing into next week.
Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks down
power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
> Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks down
> power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
That description sounds just like my 8525, either standalone or
tethered to my laptop. And, in the case of either phone, it'd depend
on the state of the battery.
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:13:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>>Bill Kraski wrote:
>>> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> No phone calls, but the iPod and WiFi allegedly work without
>>>> activating using
>>>>
>>>> the hack published online.
>>>>
>>>> http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money they're
>>> getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet screen, usable
>>> only when you have WiFi available, & a portable music player? Or is
>>> the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful" that a usable phone is
>>> unnecessary?
>>>
>>
>>
>>If memory serves, certain people would spend $20 for a paste-on cell
>>antenna so they could look cool. These are same people who now spend
>>$$$ to pimp their bling cars with bling sound systems while wearing
>>bling jewelry, and now bling phones. There are enough of these idiots
>>to keep the scammers happy, and the rest of us laughing into next week.
>
>
> Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks down
> power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
>
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>> Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks down
>> power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
>
>That description sounds just like my 8525, either standalone or
>tethered to my laptop. And, in the case of either phone, it'd depend
>on the state of the battery.
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:44:35 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>news:3osu83l8es8krhr01tjth6n3fg5241m3hj@4ax.com :
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:13:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Kraski wrote:
>>>> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No phone calls, but the iPod and WiFi allegedly work without
>>>>> activating using
>>>>>
>>>>> the hack published online.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money they're
>>>> getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet screen, usable
>>>> only when you have WiFi available, & a portable music player? Or is
>>>> the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful" that a usable phone is
>>>> unnecessary?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If memory serves, certain people would spend $20 for a paste-on cell
>>>antenna so they could look cool. These are same people who now spend
>>>$$$ to pimp their bling cars with bling sound systems while wearing
>>>bling jewelry, and now bling phones. There are enough of these idiots
>>>to keep the scammers happy, and the rest of us laughing into next week.
>>
>>
>> Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks down
>> power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
>>
>
>But no better than any other phone.
Oh, which other phone has a 3 1/2 inch screen? , let alone
one that isnt scratchable plastic.
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:44:35 -0500, Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in
>>news:3osu83l8es8krhr01tjth6n3fg5241m3hj@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:13:46 -0500, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Kraski wrote:
>>>>> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No phone calls, but the iPod and WiFi allegedly work without
>>>>>> activating using
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the hack published online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://nanocr.eu/2007/07/03/iphone-without-att/
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something, here. Why spend the kind of money
>>>>> they're getting for an iPhone just for overly small internet
>>>>> screen, usable only when you have WiFi available, & a portable
>>>>> music player? Or is the toy aspect of the iPhone so "wonderful"
>>>>> that a usable phone is unnecessary?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If memory serves, certain people would spend $20 for a paste-on cell
>>>>antenna so they could look cool. These are same people who now
>>>>spend $$$ to pimp their bling cars with bling sound systems while
>>>>wearing bling jewelry, and now bling phones. There are enough of
>>>>these idiots to keep the scammers happy, and the rest of us laughing
>>>>into next week.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems like an iPhone is great to have when stormy weather knocks
>>> down power lines to your home. You'd still be able to send email.
>>>
>>
>>But no better than any other phone.
>
> Oh, which other phone has a 3 1/2 inch screen? , let alone
> one that isnt scratchable plastic.
>
>
If the screen is the only thing you can point to, you prove my point. It is
no more effective at the task than any other phone.
Thanks for playing- now you go back to creating your latest conspiracy
theory.
Use the iPhone without AT&T
Linear Mode
