Is Verizon better than AT&T at preventing text spam?

Was getting one spam message a month. Now 4 a day, including while I sleep. Too much. I can't afford these 20-cent a message charges. Do Verizon users have better luck at getting spam blocked?

Exactly, what have you done to stop the spam? In my experience, AT&T is pretty aggressive about this, but they can't do anything if you don't bring it to their attention:
http://www.wireless.att.com/support_static_files/KB/svc/documents/1220912515172. Anti-spam%20FAQ%20080707%20Consumer.pdf

Similar Messages

Battery gets low as soon as I use my incredible. Verizon worker said this is better than iphone

my incredible's battery goes low as soon as I start using it. Verizon tech said this was better than an i phone.

I may have corrected the problem. It took several starts of iTunes, each time navigating to my podcasts and right clicking on 2-3 and unsubscribing from them before it went to 25%, became unresponsive, and required shut down from the task manager.
As soon as they were all unsub'd, iTunes went silent on CPU usage. The APSDaemon.exe shot up to 25%, but a reboot and a restart has everything quiet. I've accessed the store, played some songs, downloaded one. So far, so good.
I'll be back here to report any change.

WebLogic is better than OAS

WebLogic is better than OAS. What does this mean if we are running only Forms and Reports ? Is WebLogic using less RAM + processor for the same amount of work ? If yes, could we think of a percent ( 10-20 % less ) ?
Is WebLogic better only for Java staff or for Reports & Forms as well ?
Thanks for your response,
TPC

No difference.
The only way a daemon thread differs from a non-daemon thread is that a daemon thread won't prevent the JVM from exiting but a non-daemon thread will.

RSSI... can i get better than -80 dBm ???

i would like to know if i should be able to get better than RSSI = -80 dBm (signal strength)... i have four bars (usb ec168 modem) whenever verizon is running at it's best here in northeast oklahoma... a former alltel region... my understanding is that RSSI = -80 dBm is the level that is described as "good enough for Rev A / evdo"...
in my research of this subject googling all over... i find that some people will get RSSI in the 70s and 60s... lower being better / stronger signal... can someone tell me why i cannot get these kinds of levels since i often have four bars showing 90-100% ???
when my RSSI drops to less than -80 dBm... higher values such as -85, etc... this is when my evdo drops to 1xrtt and even DO...
appreciate any enlightenment on this subject... thx!
*obviously, verizon (if you are listening...), since i am paying for 3g broadband... i would like to have 3g broadband, rather than the 1xrtt and DO that happens so very often, evenings, during the week!

Understood. Actually, if you mean the towers are neither VZ or Alltel because the carrier name is not listed, it won't be. Your service may not be from a tower per se either. If there are antennas in the area, that may be where your signal is from.
The towers are listed by the owner and the carriers lease space on them along with the antennas. The sure way to tell is to use your cell phone if you have a VZ phone and do a field test with it since you have a desktop and cannot move it about. The closer you get to the "site" of your signal source, the stronger your signal. evdoforums.com can assist with a list of codes for each brand of cell or smartphone to help you determine this. I also have this if you may need.
Actually, -80dbm is not a bad signal and from my experience, a small percentage get better than that. The best possible is -50.
I wonder why this is even an issue since you have not reported any problem with speeds, connection or any problems that may be associated with the signal strength. If there truly are only 3 towers and no antennas in your area then the reason is more than likely due to congestion.
I have also discovered that the signals, connections, etc. are all improving and doing an update for your PRL if that is possible through your software may just be the fix.
However, if you are insistant on spending money on antennas and/or amps, etc. when the signa isn't anywhere near abnormal, that is your choice. Keep this in mind if you do, you may not have a gain in more than 10 dbm if you have any at all.
So have a great day and good luck.

Yet Another Slow DSL Issue - Speed No Better Than Dialup?

I consider myself fairly computer savvy (as I work with them as a profession), but must admit that Internet Connectivity is not my forte...
I currently subscribe to the Hi Speed DSL Enhanced - lately, the speed has degraded to not much better than dialup. I have had this service for several years - nothing has changed on my end hardware-wise, so this event is not assumed to be from my end.
I am running:
Westell 6100 Modem (Transcever Rev 7.2.3.0/Software Version 4.04.03.00)
NetGear RangeMax Duo Wireless N-Router #WNDR3300
(2) computers are hooked up:
(1) XP - hardwired directly to the Westell modem
(1) Win7 - hooked up via wireless
Both computers are running latest version of OS, IE and all software is up to date.
Both computers use Kaspersky Internet Security (internet speed the same whether it is ON or OFF)
Absolutely NO Maleware/Spyware or Viruses on either computer
I reboot the modem several times/day - with no result in increased speed
(2) phones installed in home - both with appropriate filters installed
My 1st resort was to call support - I can tell you that will be the LAST time I utilize that 'service' I have come to the end of my rope with waiting extended periods of time, only to be connected with a foreign country, with a poor connection, with an operator that barely speaks english, only to have them read thru a script telling me to do ridicuously stupid things like 'reboot the modem' (no kidding) or swap my hardwire CAT cable from my computer to modem end-for-end?
Next resort was this forum - infinitely more helpful!
Ran a Transceiver Stats Check as a baseline - Speed (Down-Up) was a crappy 96 Kbits/sec by 448 Kbits/sec
Then I tried a couple suggestions from this forum - my new Transceiver Stats:
Transceiver Statistics
Transceiver Revision:
7.2.3.0
Vendor ID Code:
4
Line Mode:
G.DMT Mode
Data Path:
Interleaved
Transceiver Information
Downstream Path
Upstream Path
DSL Speed (Kbits/Sec)
608
448
Margin (dB)
8.0
13.0
Line Attenuation (dB)
63.5
31.5
Transmit Power (dBm)
14.7
11.9
HUGE improvement eh?
One thing I did notice when attempting to check for newer version of modem firmware - when trying to update from web it gave me a 'Cannot Connect to Server Error'?
Speed is noticeably increased - but is it still where it should be?
If not, what other fixes should I attempt?
And finally, why is it that every time the weather gets even slightly inclement (sky clouds over, rain, thunderstorm, etc) our DSL goes off entirely?
Thanx for all your help in advance!

Can you fill us in a bit on what you did to improve the synch speed on the modem? Did you find some advice around here to connect the modem to your NID or did you investigate for damage to the home wiring? Your line should be running at a higher speed, which for what you seem to have is 1184kbps down, 448kbps up.
Do you also have voice service with Verizon? If so, how is that, especially during storms? Getting any noise on it? It could be possible if the line is not having issues due to corrosion, somewhere along the line shielding could be missing, and in comes a storm CRC'ing the line out of service.
========
The first to bring me 1Gbps Fiber for $30/m wins!

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

Is Verizon better than AT&T at preventing text spam?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for