User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6881 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This is only so the wireless carriers can gouge us on mms/sms(text message) prices. In Japan for instance, text messaging as we know it does not exist. Instead, each cellphone comes with an email address attached (something like phonenumber@wirelessprovider.com) and the phones(even old school flip phones and the like) have an email app instead of a text messaging app. They only charge for the actual data used which is minuscule compared to what we are charged for text messages here.
Eddo is absolutely spot on here.
I actually went with the option from my phone company that converts VoiceMail to text-messages. It's not always a perfect translation, but it gets the point across. I like it.
I usually disagree with almost everything you post on BBTF, but on this I fully agree.
I have strongly resisted the need to be on FB.
It can only lead to pain and suffering (either for myself or others).
If I cared about the people that have dropped out of my life (school acquaintances, former co-workers, etc), I wouldn't have let them drop out of my life. Refusing friend requests, or dropping friends, or blocking friends, or refusing game invites, or not commenting on every ####### picture/story...all of these things are going to hurt people's feelings.
By simply not participating, I don't have to worry about that ####.
If you think your kid is cute, send me the picture by email (or a link to your online album).
If you've got important news, call me (but I prefer email).
The only thing that might EVER get me onto FB would be if I have a kid and I feel the need to monitor his FB page (or whatever is around then). Of course, I'll be an old fogey and he/she will have figured out a way to trick me into seeing only the boring stuff.
I have to say that I used to feel exactly the way you do but I've done a 180. A text message is wonderfully convenient if you are looking to convey a message but not interested in a conversation. A quick text "not feeling well, not making it to the bar tonight" is an easy thing. Text messages are the game chatters of the communication world. They aren't meant for deep involved ideas but are great for those little quick hitters.
The other thing a text is great for is when you are trying to get a simple piece of information. Rather than call a friend and ask "who is that company that spreads mulch in your yard" then having them have to say "oh I'll look it up I'll call you back." you just send the text and when they get that info they text it back.
Of course I say this as someone who is not especially friendly. I'm pretty anti-social so a communication method that does not require true interaction is right up my alley.
It's kind of lose/lose. Either your kid is smart and will have figured out how to protect himself from you, or your kid is dumb and hasn't figured it out...but it means your kid is dumb...
I understand not liking to communicate via text, but to pretend it is useless is a joke.\
It's useless b/c email is better, and free. Get a phone from the 21st century and send me an email.
Phoning someone is almost rude these days. A text message is passive, polite. I'll send you a note, you'll read it when you have a chance. You'll reply when you get a moment, or maybe you won't. Whatever. Phoning someone is jumping up and down screaming "PAY ATTENTION TO ME NOW!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME NOW!!" Don't phone me unless it's important or we need to have a conversation.
But if I'm texting you, it's probably because I need to talk to you now. If it was not time sensitive, I'd wait until I got home and send you and email. Or the issue has some nuance that isn't well handled via text.
There's no conversation too simple that it can't be reduced to a 20 text/email exchange with rampant confusion and misunderstanding.
Google plus seems really well done, but it gets hardly any traffic. I have several friends at Google, though, so a lot of the stuff they post about is pretty interesting.
Current highlights of the facebook feed:
-snarky comment about Sirius XM being the "official" satellite radio of MLB -- do they have any competition?
-astronomer noting that five planets will be visible in the night sky for the next week
-yea for Friday!
-sexy self portrait by french ballerina
-one friend congratulating another on Nature paper
-picture album of Easter river trip that I wasn't able to make this year
-brother announcing successful PhD defense
-post by a friend about her robotics company getting investments through Kickstarter.
I swear it's not usually that interesting, but those posts appear sequentially.
God, yes. I'm fine with txting and do it plenty, but I have had to go so far as to flat out tell people (over the phone!) that I'm not going to have a planning conversation via txt.
What if I want to communicate w/ someone by written word who will not be checking their email for hours/days?
Everyone checks their phone more often than their email, even if they get email on their phone. To pretend otherwise is just deluding yourself.
No it's not, you pay for the data you send in your email. Texting is cheaper.
What is the advantage of text over email?
It's just as easy to send an email from my phone as a text, and that way people also see the message if they're at their desk, and don't have their phone out.
I never look at my cell-phone between 8 AM and 5:30 PM.
Text messages are charged at about 5-10x the rate of data, so no.
Well, I'd say texting is in between those two. An email could take days before the person reads it. Maybe you don't need to TALK RIGHT NOW, but you'd like them to get the message within the next couple hours. That's what texting is for. It's incredibly useful.
Good for you; most people are not you.
Who doesn't have their email sent to their phone? Jeeze, and you people think I'm the Luddite.
No it's not, you pay for the data you send in your email. Texting is cheaper.
I never come close to my data limit, but I need data for web access, so I can't drop it. So, it's free to me.
Adding free texting would cost me extra. It's much cheaper just to pay for the few random texts people send me.
You have much more involved conversations than I do. Just looking at my recent texts;
- the guy I coach little league with checked in to let me know that I should work with one of our catchers on pitch blocking and that he found a good drill for it
- a friend letting me know when the Bruins playoff series started
- my brother mocking my uncle for his insane ramblings during Easter dinner
- the guy I share my fantasy baseball team with saying "keep Infante in the lineup, he had a good weekend" thank God I got that one.
None of these is particularly deep but they have their place. It's also a great way to embrace/##### about the local sports team. I didn't really want to discuss the Red Sox catastrophe yesterday but a few of us exchanged brief texts (mostly involving words that the nanny would not approve of).
I get where you are coming from but I think you'd be surprised at how useful it is. It's not a good method for detail but a lot of life's little this and that can be taken care of through text.
It's absolutely perfect for the reasons eddo notes - On my way, parking now, won't be able to make it, add one to the reservation, where are you now, etc...
Multi-party planning via txt gets unwieldy, but one-on-one I don't mind it in the least. I'll generally call if it's a completely undefined evening, but just dinner or drink? Easier to do via text...
People who don't care about email because they have a phone with text messaging and facebook and don't have an email or don't check their email often because it's full of spam anyway.
It just seems like it's an inferior single use technology (phone-to-phone) being used when a superior multi-use technology exists.
My emails pop up in a nice little window on my phone. Much easier to read, sort, respond, everything is better than the text app.
And I get more spam texts than real ones. I assume if I texted a lot, they would increase.
Cyberstalking.
But really, I check FB almost every day. It's a great way to stay in casual touch with people, and keep up with what is going on in their life. It's less personal than email because you broadcast to all your friends, but you can also do personal messages if you're inclined.
Apps like Farmville or Daily Horoscope can clog your feed, but it's no big deal to disable them (just one click).
Maybe it's the phone. My Motorola Android has a very nice email interface that shows sender and subject. I can clear a day's spam, and skim 15 emails in under a minute.
This is just the silliest bit of curmudgeonly behavior imaginable. I don't like short email blasts to my phone! I prefer long email blasts to the email reader on my phone. Just...amazingly silly.
I didn't know such a thing existed. I have never received a spam text.
Even people who have email sent to their phone check their texts and calls more frequently! So maybe in your hypothetical fantasy world text messages would be useless, but for the moment here on earth they have great use.
Going back 20 years+ on hearing this, and I still don't understand it. I do think the main problem is for those people who are unable to actively say "OK, good to talk/thanks, I have to go, will catch you later. Good-bye."
-Told my best buddy his picture made the paper
-Wife texted from work (a hospital) to ask how boys were doing
-Wife texting me to get milk at the grocery store
-Told sisters the Easter party is at 4:30 instead of 4
-Asked for address for our fantasy baseball draft
-Back and forth with college roommate on OSU/KU game. He was likely at a bar, so I doubt it would have made for a great phone call.
-Barack Obama harassing me again
Texting is perfect for guys I think. I hate talking on the phone. If I talk on the phone, its a two minute conversation ("we still meeting at Tanner's for drinks after work?"). Texting removes that. If I want to have an extended conversation with a friend, I'll probably meet them face to face, like at say, Tanners's for drinks after work.
On my FB feed at the moment:
- a picture of Bill Maher
- something about neo-Nazis
- what looks very much like a picture of two grackles that somebody just shot: shot the grackles, I mean
- somebody's props to his co-workers
- Repoz saying he's just won cash for taking a Big Buck Survey
Jeebus, y'all are right, Facebook is a vast wasteland.
Me, but I don't really use the phone at all, other than to call Mrs. Unacceptable when I'm going to run late, or get a call from SoSH Jr. when he's ready to be picked up.
I neither want nor need to be contantly connected.
I too am social, but hate talking on the phone. I find it very awkward to speak to someone without being able to see them. I think social people who dislike phones may rely more heavily on visual social cues than people who don't mind speaking on the phone.
All of my phone conversations are filled with weird pauses and both people talking over one another. It's like I can't figure out who is supposed to talk when without seeing the other person's face. Which is odd, because I'm a fairly natural conversationalist in person.
Texting is great when you are at a bar/concert/ballgame and you can't hear anything.
What is the advantage of text over email?
It's just as easy to send an email from my phone as a text, and that way people also see the message if they're at their desk, and don't have their phone out.
It just signifies a different level of import. I can't access my personal email at work, so I have to look at both texts and emails on my iPhone. I check that account every few hours if I'm not expecting any messages. But if I get a text message, it will automatically pop up on my phone.
If my wife emails me something, it's usually not urgent and she knows it's in the mailbox with the messages from my friends and the junkmail, and that I'll respond when I get around to it. If she texts me, it's usually something that requires a more real-time response, and I'll respond to it relatively quickly assuming I'm not in a meeting.
Exactly. In a theoretical planet of 7 billion snappers, email would indeed be more useful, but on this particular planet, with the actual people who are here, text-messaging is great. I could phone my friend and bug her while she's trying to do the laundry, or I could email her and wait 7 days for her to respond, or I can just send her a text message and get a response sometime this hour. As long as she's not snapper (and I don't think she is,) it's great.
Interesting, but very few people pay by the text. Phone/text is cheaper than phone/email, which is what snapper was talking about.
What I don't like is paying for them, and having to use an inferior interface. I don't care what you do amongst yourselves.
Even people who have email sent to their phone check their texts and calls more frequently!
Really? Not me. You leave a voicemail or text on my phone, you're lucky if I see it within 24 hours.
I have this dynamic going on with one or two people, but I hate phone conversations of any length. I don't mind talking to immediate family, but otherwise I'd prefer texting/email/in-person interactions with everyone else in the world.
Yeah but you have to get the data plan if you want to do anything else on a smartphone, and email's included in that. To me, the text is the only one that's optional.
It's more the pressure of being locked-into a conversation with someone and having to come up with responses on-the-spot. Some people are better at this than others; it's a skill. Talking on the phone can be like a first date.
Yeah...for the most part. I can scan 10 hours feed in just a few seconds based on what most of my acquaintances post. ...other people I have to refrain from commenting too much on their posts if they're a friend of a friend that somehow made it to my friend list. I don't want to appear creepy.
The FB protocals are very complicated!
For me, I think it's just a function of getting old and advancing brain problems. I also despise talking on the phone...now...but distinctly remember as a child just calling up friends to shoot the ####, and having 2 hour conversations with long-distance-relationship girlfriends.
Sure, but not everyone has email on their phone. Many more people have text messaging though.
Good for you. Again, not everyone is you. Most people, especially people under 30, who are the people I mostly communicate with, check their texts more often, and the signal/noise ratio is a hundred times higher on text than email. If I emailed them, they would go "WTF? Are you my grandpa or something?"
Also false. The rate for texts is ridiculous, even if you pay for unlimited monthly texts, which is generally $5-$10 a month, you would need to send literally 10000+ texts a month to even get close the $/bit rate that most data plans charge. Texts are an absolutely tiny amount of data, even accounting for the occasional inclusion of pictures. Also, remember that even with modern texting apps that don't appear to limit characters per message, the carriers still break them into multiple sms messages every ~240 characters, so they can charge people who don't have unlimited messaging even more. Text messaging as a service only exists so the wireless carriers can gouge more money from us.
EDIT: And to be clear, email uses almost no data also, this is why they implemented mms/sms, so they could overcharge us for the data.
Again, I txt plenty, but I'm going to be practically Gaelan-esque here and say a lot of you are rotting your damned brains by sticking your noses up at emails of a certain length.
These aren't facebook rules. These are life rules. Except that no one cares about the cancer, either.
Want to be interesting? Don't ever talk about your health or kids unless specifically asked to
1: Parents of young children do not care , their kids are cute and they are going to talk about them
2: Parents of young kids tend to think that others' kids are cute too (maybe not as cute...)
I'm not saying people will care about what I think, just that, universally, people care more about their health and kids than other people's health and kids. It isn't specific to facebook.
By the way, I've seen the phrase "I don't need to be on facebook" or it's equivalent a lot up above. Well, of course not. No one needs to be on it. For some it provides a useful means to communicate with friends. Why should you be dictating to them how they do that? If you don't wish to join, don't. But don't ##### at me if I want to use it. Some people still write letters, on paper, and mail it to people. Is that a problem for you?
As far as e-mail in the "young", my students (18-22) use it but only for business. I think they have the right idea: email is actually mail, with a better trail than most of these other things and more formality. Hence, when I send assignments or suggested reading, etc., I do it by email. If we go back and forth over a grade or deadline (with, say, an individual student). But if I, for example, play on a softball team with some students, as has happened, they send me a text for a schedule change, etc.
They're all just ####### tools. Quick getting your panties in a bunch. There is no threat. There is no new world. It's just one more avenue of communication, at which we've been getting better for centuries.
One of the things I find the most curious about modern communication is that it's branded as "social" but seems anything but. Talking on the phone is social. Having lunch with someone is social. Blasting out one-way updates about your day is not social, or at least seems to be a significant re-branding of the word. (Side note: It's bizarre how common it is to be in a restaurant and see families seated together but not talking to each other, because all of them are looking down at their mobile device.)
Another thing that's interesting is how there seems to be an inverse relationship between the power of our technology and the usage thereof. We now walk around with devices that can send War and Peace-length messages back and forth within seconds, yet messages longer than 140 characters are increasingly verboten, and people insist on slaughtering the language with "C U soon" and "R U OK." Very strange. We have the latest 21st-century technology in our hands but communicate via messages that make early 19th-century Western Union telegrams seem verbose.
The iPhone text interface is awesome. It's so simple. Even GMail on the PC, which I use exclusively, has a lot of #### on the screen that I don't need to see. GMail's web interface is generally awesome on the iPhone as well.
Looking at my FB feed right now:
1. Acquaintance from college posting random link that I'm not clicking on.
2. College friend sharing photo of a cat. Don't think it is her cat.
3. Close friend in advertising posting article about some American Apparel ads being banned in the UK
4. HS friend posting a picture of cherry stems that he tied in a knot (would never have known that if I hadn't clicked to report to you guys)
5. Friend who works at Facebook posting an announcement that they acquired Instagram (first I had heard about that)
6. Acquaintance from college posting about her allergies
7. Acquaintance from college posting about Wisconsin politics
8. Friend asking us to vote for her cousin in some cooking competition where she can win $20k
9. College friend posting a link about the Purdue University Rube Goldberg machine competition (kind of awesome)
Wow, that is way more noise to signal than I was expecting. I guess I'm usually pretty good at filtering through the useless posts. To be fair, the few people who I actively follow generally don't post in the middle of the day.
Hmm. That is an interesting theory. I remember as a preteen/teenager just gabbing on the phone forever. I wonder if I just had less inhibitions about the crap that was coming out of my mouth back then. Thank god what I said wasn't saved for posterity on a twitter account.
You're missing half the point. A basic phone with text and it's plan is cheaper than a smartphone with a data package. Snapper's original post said "Get a phone from the 21st century and send me an email." Not everyone can do that though.
I use email a lot. At work; when formality and documentation matters.
You might want to keep your eye on that creepy-looking-dude standing behind him.
I understand that, but this situation only exists because the wireless carriers in NA decided to create a new messaging standard to ridiculously overcharge for data rates. Also, I'm not sure your statement is actually true any longer, there are some very cheap smartphones and data plans these days.
Who's arguing ditching emails entirely? And also, do those of you complaining about the way people type in texts actually communicate with anyone that actually talks like that? I can't be the only person in this thread that doesn't know anyone who uses that annoying text shorthand.
I have always hated talking on the phone, which might be kind of strange since I love texting, emailing, video chat, IMs, tweeting. But to sit down and talk to you on the phone? No thanks.
This. Why would I pay for data and a smartphone when nobody i know sends me e-mails? I use my phone for calls and texts. Instead of buying and carrying around a small computer, I have a small, cheap phone, a cheap plan, and can make unlimited calls and texts. The only thing I'm missing out on is the ability to get on the internet in the few hours of the day i'm not right by a computer.
Looking at my gmail account right now, I have not recieved a substantive personal e-mail in months. I get texts constantly, and never any text spam.
Smart phones are, in my opinion, generally a waste of money.
That's pretty awesome.
I don't object to the sharing at all, I just think FaceBook as a company is up to no good and they don't care about their users (note, not customers) and will step on anyone to get ahead.
That's awesome. Also because I expected the link to be a picture of Madeline Albright.
I'm on pay as you go. The biggest objection I have to smartphones is the cost. There just isn't a chance in hell that I'll ever use the phone enough to justify the cost.
With pay as you go, I pay $100 for 1000 minutes. Over the course of a year, I use about 3000 to 4000 minutes, so I pay around $300 to $400. The phone itself cost $19.95. I pay less than a monthly plan and I use every minute that I paid for. With the iPhone I was pay $80 to $90 a month just to have the ability to check email on the bus. That's just not worth that much. People can wait until I get to a computer.
I'm also that guy who does not check his phone, ever. I go days without looking at it, but I keep it in my pocket if I go out.
I have an Android phone, but I agree that the texting interface is much more simple.
Email (I use GMail) is more robust. As such, I use it for more robust messages.
Asking a group of several friends what time we need to meet up and who is bringing what for an upcoming rafting trip? I use email; it's easier for multiple people to follow along and it's much easier to refresh yourself on what someone said a week ago. It's also easier to format your text so that's is easier to read (when you're using an actual computer with a keyboard and mouse).
Asking one or two people from the same group of friends what time I should meet them at the bar tonight? I use text messaging. It's more immediate and casual, and suggests that I don't need a long response; a few words will do.
Snapper does have a point that the things that texting does well - short, casual, immediate - can be done via email if the people you're communicating with have smartphones. However, I find it nice to use email for the things it does that texting can't - long, formal, archived. I feel that by doing so, I encourage those I'm talking with to use it the same way. Therefore, it makes it easier to go through emails and texts when I get them - a text is something I should address more quickly, while an email suggests I should put more thought and time into my answer.
Or the phone that you've been paying a gazillion dollars for the last 24 months is obsolete. I'm so mad that I can't get the new MLB AT-BAT app for my iPhone 3G. I use it only as an iPod touch now since I no longer have service on it. But now it's becoming useless because the apps are starting to obsolete it. Basically if you don't want to upgrade your phone, you'll be forced to because apps will be grading you out in 3 to 4 years. It just shouldn't be the case that a palmtop computer that's only 4 years old can't run the latest apps or ios operating system. This is why Apple is a bunch of ####### ########. Because they think they're a hardware company, they make software decisions that require you to purchase new and updated hardware. The hardware pipeline comes first and it's always about getting you a new device in your hands.
Smart phones are, in my opinion, generally a waste of money.
To me, the smartphone is a great investment. I love being able to use the web on the go. Great for killing time on the train, or in the Drs. office (A Godsend when they keep you waiting for 30 min in the exam room with no magazines). Plus looking up directions, or restaurants when you're out and about. Even just answering stupid arguments at dinner, google is right there.
It's bizarre how common it is to be in a restaurant and see families seated together but not talking to each other, because all of them are looking down at their mobile device
These people should be tased. Repeatedly.
Duh, that's how they get the $800.
Tell me about it. I have a 1st-Gen iPod touch. I was able to watch live games on it last year; worked great. This year, no go. My Android device isn't supported either, despite having the supported OS. Neither of these devices are particularly old; it's infuriating.
But, honestly, the At-Bat App is the first one I've had this problem with. MLBAM is ####.
Different strokes for different folks. I am away from my home or office computer for at most a few hours a day, and even those few hours are usually non-consecutive. I have no pressing need for mobile access, but others may.
As to your last point, I'll admit I'm a freeloader. Every group has at least one person with a smart phone; why should I pay up for redundant Google access?
And so can I!
And also, do those of you complaining about the way people type in texts actually communicate with anyone that actually talks like that? I can't be the only person in this thread that doesn't know anyone who uses that annoying text shorthand.
The only people I know like that are people with shitty older phones.
The other option is not to buy.
Not to buy what?
A new phone. Let yourself not have the new app that you think you need, which you probably don't need.
Even if you don't "buy" a smartphone (I'm assuming you're discussing the "free" phone included with many plans), you're paying out the nose. A $50 a month contract with a free phone is $1200+ for 2 years. If you made people pony up that money beforehand, I doubt many would buy it. They're phenomenally expensive for what you get.
Having a few minutes of internet at the doctor's office isn't worth it to me. I can entertain myself for nearly any length of time. I don't need a phone to do it.
Agreed. Although since I'm a student I allow myself few luxuries. MLB.tv is the biggest and most expensive one I get. That I can't listen to gameday audio on the old iPhone while I'm cooking is a big annoyance.
Email: I use email almost entirely for work (obvious, I think), things related to the team I coach, and for receiving annoying emails intended for someone else with my first initial and last name. I don't get it sent to my phone because I don't have a smartphone and don't really need/want it sent to my phone anyway. Good for documentation and sending larger amounts of content.
Text message: Great for quick notifications, terrible for conversations. If I'm not expecting a call or text, I often go several hours or all day without checking my phone (which I keep permanently on silent), though.
Facebook: I technically have a Facebook account that I created when I was in college about eight years ago and don't use; I think I have about three friends on there. At various points I've considered giving it a real shot, so I'll consider it again, but if my track record is any indication, I won't do it. I see the utility and the purpose; I'm just not into it.
Twitter: I have a Twitter account and I follow exactly 10 people, none of whom have started tweeting too much for me to unfollow them yet.
Telephone: Good for talking to my parents on Sunday evenings, as I typically do. Also good for letting kids borrow the phone to call their parents to let them know they need to be picked up from practice. Otherwise I don't call much, but I guess it's nice to have the option.
Voice mail: Please don't leave me a voice mail.
Video conference: Never done this. Don't have the proper setup for it, and don't see any personal need here.
Instant messaging: Did this a lot in high school, and some in college. This was before text messaging. We have an IM client at work that gets used mostly for non-work related stuff. I think stuff like AIM and ICQ have gone the way of the telegram now.
Face-to-face: Still the most effective, and the most reliable way of getting hold of me.
All right, what did I miss?
So I hit him with the onion in my belt and walked out. No, seriously, I just downgraded my phone service to minimal and forgot about smartphones. I haven't felt disempowered without one. OTOH, I am constantly online with my laptop, so the usefulness of the phone may have been minimal. The one time I really missed one was trying to rebook travel of some sort on short notice involving several people going here and there. Otherwise, send me an e-mail, I'll get it Monday.
Really cool if you have the right equipment, useless with the cheap ####.
They also don't accept nickels with bumblebees on them at the Apple store.
I probably spend a good 20 hours a week on conf calls with some manner of LiveMeeting - and occasionally, someone will attempt to make them into video conferences... but it seems pointless for any reason except to be sure no one is making faces at you over the phone.
I suppose we have the rare meeting where someone's whiteboarding something, but our new web meeting provider has a pretty cool "draw on screen" feature will makes that rare occurrence a thing of the past, too.
My company has what amounts to dual headquarters; one in Boston one in Stockholm. Since we started regular video conferencing our development teams have made dramatic strides in terms of efficiency. I'm not in those meetings but literally everyone who has been involved has said that it's a huge time saver and that exchanging ideas in that format is much better than phone calls or e-mails.
I suppose there is a sociological study to be done on why that is but as an accountant I just care about how much money we get every month and it's more now than it was. That makes me happy.
I'm sure it can be cool, and some of people probably have a need for it. I'm struggling to come up with one instance in my life where I can say, "That would have been a lot more effective if I could have done a video conference."
Verizon: 0123456789@vzwpix.com
AT&T: 0123456789@mms.att.net
Sprint: 0123456789pm.sprint.com
T-Mobile: 0123456789@tmomail.net
The key is to use a cell provider's MMS address (rather than SMS address).
Wikipedia has a list of addresses for use with other carriers.
I listened to a very nice presentation (on baseball!) via conference call, last week. The presenter sent me a PowerPoint file, and noted when he was changing slides. I clicked along. No cameras needed ...
Phone sex?
No, rather, and correctly, if Franzen hates something, then it is good. If Franzen supports something, then it is stupid. Franzen is just another overrated pseudo-intellectual.
It's really about personally connecting with people who you work with, but almost never see in person. You get all kinds of nuance, body language, etc. that you don't get via phone.
With the top-end equipment, it's really, really close to having them sitting across the table from you. The table and screen are also arranged in a semi-circular fashion to enhance that effect. Also, no sound lag.
It's hard to describe, but it's much better than a call.
Get Bent: Video: Ty Segall & White Fence - "Scissor People"
Dan Epstein: Josh Wilker of Cardboard Gods: An All-American Tale Told Through Baseball Cards just called me "The Bangsian Herodotus of 1970s Baseball" on Twitter.
MyDeathSpace shared a link: Claire Lin (31) committed suicide while on Facebook describing her death.
Michael Fennelly (Crabby Appleton): who wants to help keep my neice Leila out of the gutter? National Abortion Access Bowl-a-Thon link.
FB am the bee's knees' knees.
That's wrong. It's 0123456789@tmomail.net. I use this all the time too.
Not sure what the purpose of posting a meal from a restaurant is, unless it's genuinely unique.
Nope. Not ever.
People post pictures of restaurant meals to say, "Look at me and where I can afford to eat." Anyone who wants to see beautifully plated food can go to French Laundry or Le Bernardin or Minibar or watch the ####### Food Network for five minutes.
"
No not really. People ALL over the world post pictures of food. Sometimes, this is "street food". Hardly anything to do with showing off.
Jonathan Franzen, novelist. Wrote The Corrections and most recently Freedom.
That was a typo on my part. I corrected it. Thanks for catching that.
A meal is social, particularly at a restaurant. Wanting to share it is merely to extend the table a bit, so to speak. It's ecumenical and I like that. That and whenever people describe their food, they don't do a good job. Whenever someone tells me a restaurant is "good" I don't believe them unless they can do a good job of explaining why, or if they can show me pictures.
You're welcome. Being able to email directly to my wife's phone is something I very much appreciate.
Oh, we have an extremely geographically diverse company, too --- we're a Dutch publisher, with most of our global development staffed in Long Island and The Netherlands, most product management staffed in Manhattan, and most editorial/analyst resources in a Chicago suburb, and production/operational staff in Arkansas and abroad.
We do a ton of desktop meetings -- I'm absolutely not at all downplaying the usefulness of those things... I just don't understand the need for a video feed -- what is to be gained by viewing someone sitting at their desk or sitting around a conference table?
Ditto my use with a couple of friends. On my computer I've added a script which checks the character count before I send the message. I can then approve sending the message or edit to fit the 160-character limit.
Thing though is that, IME, the "backlash" tends to be by the people who either have never used "social media", or who tried it a bit, then decided they did not like like, then decided to "backlash".
Yes, their is narcissism. So what? If in your opinion someone is posting too many narcissistic things, or too many of anything that irritates you, you are always free to stop paying attention to that someone. Same thing with stupid things that people write. As for causing real life interactions to suffer, that depends on what you mean by "real life". What is "real life"? Is reading newspapers, "real life"? Wathching TV? If you're backlashing against "social" media because of its perceived negative effects on "real life", then be consistent and backlash against the other things too. Is say getting an account of an event from someone who was actually involved in that event via "social" media such as Twitter, less "real" than getting it from a newspaper or TV journalist? Or more real?
Probably to get people to listen. I have teleconferences all the time, and most of the time I'm not listening, I'm wasting time on Facebook instead.
In all seriousness, teleconferences are extremely hard to follow. I have little idea of who is saying what, assuming I can even hear them well in the first place.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main