In article <0XW7K.749632$oF2.266033@fx10.iad>, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >>> Not as few as you might think. Two days a week I work at an office
> >>> out in the country which has no cell coverage. FM radios work fine
> >>> there, though.
> >>
> >> that's a rare exception. it's anecdotal and not representative of the
> >> rest of the world.
>
> I see, my anecdotes don't count but yours do. Sorry, Your Majesty.

i gave statistics, not anecdotes.

no coverage is 100%.

the number of people for whom there is cellular/wifi but no fm is
greater than the number of people for whom there is fm but no
cellular/wifi.

In message <t3p7d3$e03$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 7:06 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 15:00, Lewis wrote:
>>> It's a weird business in 2022 that can be located somewhere with no cell
>>> coverage.
>>
>> You would be surprised.
>>
>> Many industrial sites have either large levels of interference, are
>> covered in enough metal to prevent external mobile signals penetrating
>> or are simply in one of the many places where coveragee is patchy at best.
>> Fortunately phones equipped with wifi calling can use the internet to
>> make calls

> Lewis is wrong of course™.

And you are a sad little troll.

> In urban areas it would be rare to not have coverage, though often, even
> in urban areas when you're deep inside a big box store you'll lose coverage.

Yeah, peons inside a big box store don't need cell coverage and are
almost certainly forbidden from using their devices while on the clock,
dumbass. That would obviously include FM radios.

> In rural areas there are often businesses with no, or poor, cell
> coverage.

The funny thing about rural areas is that, by definition, very few
people and very few businesses are located in them.

--
Cheer up Keeley, it's a funeral.

sms wrote:

> nospam is wrong of course™.

The _reason_ nospam is wrong is simply that he will fabricate any excuse he
can think of for the lack of basic functionality in the Apple product line.

> The FM radio on smart phones is used in other situations and when you're
> not on Wi-Fi, and sometimes when there's no cell coverage.

FM radio is basic functionality on _most_ phones for good reasons indeed.
--
Usenet is where kind-hearted people daily gather to voluntarily help others.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> You would be surprised.
>
> Many industrial sites have either large levels of interference, are
> covered in enough metal to prevent external mobile signals penetrating
> or are simply in one of the many places where coveragee is patchy at best.
> Fortunately phones equipped with wifi calling can use the internet to
> make calls

What you're running into is the iKooks (Lewis, nospam, Jolly Roger, Alan
Baker, et. al) are always making _excuses_ for why the iPhone lacks basic
functionality that is (and always has been) in _most_ phones out there.

What they _hate_ is the basic functionality isn't in their beloved iPhone.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I see, my anecdotes don't count but yours do. Sorry, Your Majesty.

What you're running into is the iKooks own an imaginary belief system that
intimates their beloved product line has the basic functionality it lacks.

The problem you're seeing is that the iKooks don't own the adult skills to
simply accept that fact.

Like children still believing in Santa Claus well after the fifth grade, the
iKooks are _desperate_ to cling on to their unmet expectations.

Yet, the fact remains the iPhone lacks even the most basic functionality
that not only almost all phones have, but most phones still have - such as
the sdslot, the 3.5mm jack, the FM radio, the charger in the box, etc.

iKook: Santa exists. He's gonna give me an iPhone for Christmas.
Adult: No son. That's just a marketing gimmick. Your parents are Santa.

iKook: No. You're wrong. He exists. I saw him on an Apple advertisement.
Adult: That's how marketing works, son. Apple wants you to think that.

iKook: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! I hate you. You're wrong!
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.
Except, for some reason, the iKooks. They're here only to defend Apple.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I see, my anecdotes don't count but yours do.  Sorry, Your Majesty.
>
> What you're running into is the iKooks own an imaginary belief
> system that intimates their beloved product line has the basic
> functionality it lacks.
>
> The problem you're seeing is that the iKooks don't own the adult
> skills to simply accept that fact.
>
> Like children still believing in Santa Claus well after the fifth
> grade, the iKooks are _desperate_ to cling on to their unmet
> expectations.
>
> Yet, the fact remains the iPhone lacks even the most basic
> functionality that not only almost all phones have, but most phones
> still have - such as the sdslot, the 3.5mm jack, the FM radio, the
> charger in the box, etc.
>
>  iKook: Santa exists. He's gonna give me an iPhone for Christmas.
>  Adult: No son. That's just a marketing gimmick. Your parents are
> Santa.
>
>  iKook: No. You're wrong. He exists. I saw him on an Apple
> advertisement.
>  Adult: That's how marketing works, son. Apple wants you to think
> that.
>
>  iKook: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! I hate you. You're wrong!

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk.

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

>> you're assuming unlimited data is needed. it's not, largely because
>> most of the time, people are on wifi.
>
> You're assumng there's a nearby hotspot for which they have the
> password.

You haven't figured out yet that with the iKooks, their only goal is to
defend Apple at all costs, to the death, no matter what - and every time.

Hence it doesn't really matter what excuse nospam fabricates for why the
iPhone lacks the basic functionality of the FM radio that most phones have.

These iKooks (Lewis, nospam, Jolly Roger, Alan Baker, et. al), only have a
half dozen responses to _everything_ about Apple that they themselves hate.

It doesn't matter _what_ the missing functionality is, as the conversation
will be the same no matter what, as what has never changed is Apple strategy
of slowly removing basic functionality so that you tend to buy it back.

Any conversation about basic functionality missing from the iPhone
always proceeds using most if not all of these tired old iKook tricks...

1. Normally they brazenly _fabricate_ a claim that the functionality exists.
(Of course, they _never_ come up with the facts since it's imaginary.)

2. They almost always claim nobody wants or needs the missing functionality.
(Which you're seeing them do here which is their _next_ excuse.)

3. They'll then claim that almost no phones have that basic functionality.
(Which, again, they did here and they're _always_ wrong on that too!)

4. Then they'll claim that there's no demand for that basic functionality.
(They did that here - but the fact most phones have it belies that).

5. This goes on for a long time where finally they get exasperated and
they start to say they know of the functionality but they won't tell you.

6. The adult response always is to ask them to name it, which they never
can, but often what they do is name something completely different.

7. If you can focus them back on the facts that they're _desperate_ to
derail they will extol the virtues of their presumed replacement.

8. If you continue to focus them on the fact their beloved product line
is missing the basic functionality, they will call you a troll & worse.

9. It will culminate in myriad kindergarten name calling episodes as you
clearly saw here, simply because they have no _adult_ response to facts.

10. Vastly shortened, this is essentially a conversation with these iKooks:
iKook: Santa is great! He's gonna give me a new iPhone for Christmas!
Adult: No son. That's just a marketing gimmick. Your parents are Santa.

iKook: No. You're wrong. He exists. I saw him on an Apple advertisement.
Adult: That's how marketing works, son. Apple wants you to think that.
Adult: The facts are Santa can't do that magical stuff you believe in.
iKook: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! I hate you. I hate you! You're wrong!
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

sms wrote:

> Lewis is wrong of course.

The folks on the c.s.r.p group may not be familiar with the iKooks, where
all the iKooks have the _same_ response in _any_ topic that purports to
mention the lack of basic functionality of their beloved product line.

In this case, it's FM radio - where they claim that it exists in another
form, and that nobody wants it anyway, and that most phones don't have it,
etc., all of which are always wrong since most phones _do_ have it.

Just not iPhones.

> In urban areas it would be rare to not have coverage, though often, even
> in urban areas when you're deep inside a big box store you'll lose coverage.

We call fall into the trap of discussing each of the lame excuses that the
iKooks come up with to defend the lack of basic functionality in the iPhone.

But the fact would remain that Apple's strategy is to slowly remove basic
functionality from the iPhone so that you tend to buy it back.

That's the only reason their beloved iPhone lacks the basic functionality
that is and always has been in _most_ phones every built & out there today.
a. Common sdcard slots for _portable_ memory
b. Industry standard 3.5mm jacks for general use
c. FM radios for emergency & specific needs
d. License-free cables such as industry standard USB-C cables
e. Fast chargers (or at least slow chargers) provided gratis, in the box
etc.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.
Except for the iKooks who vehemently deny all facts they hate about Apple.

nospam wrote:

> the number of people for whom there is cellular/wifi but no fm is
> greater than the number of people for whom there is fm but no
> cellular/wifi.

It doesn't matter _what_ basic functionality is missing from nospam's
beloved choice in phones as nospam will defend that missing basic
functionality to the death by a myriad of excuses he fabricates.

What remains nonetheless, is the fact the iPhone lacks basic functionality.

a. Industry standard sdcard slots to use with _portable_ memory cards
b. Industry standard 3.5mm jacks for overall general-purpose needs
c. FM radios for emergency use & for specific needs when you're off the net
d. License-free cables & ports (such as industry standard USB-C cables)
e. Fast chargers (or at least slow chargers) provided gratis, in the box
f. Modern capacity batteries (more than 4-1/2 to 7 Amp hours nowadays)
etc.

All of that basic common hardware functionality is on _most phones_ today.
Just not on any current iPhone.

That's what is consistent & not nospam's myriad excuses as to why that fact.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of import.
Save for the iKooks. They're here solely to defend Apple to the death.

nospam wrote:

> except that's not what you said yesterday.
>
> according to *you*, 'all the languages do the same thing, essentially,
> using a different syntax'.

Jesus Chris. You _are_ still an idiot, nospam.

Whether it's Fortran or Assembly Language or Java or Cotlin or whatever,
they all do the same things with a different syntax.

Your claim that you can't do with Assembly Language what you can with, oh,
say, Swift, just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to coding, nospam.

As always, you iKooks have the confluence of three traits:
a. Your self esteem is tied up with defending everything Apple does
b. Your IQ is substandard
c. Hence your education and knowledge level is also substandard.

If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly
Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.

Tell us one thing Swift can do that an Assembly Language program can't do.
Name just one.

nospam wrote:

>>>> The point on that iPad is that Apple _requires_ periodic sign in, nospam.
>>>
>>> it does not.
>>
>> Then what's this?
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>
> it's irrefutable proof that you're incredibly clueless, among other
> things.

No. It's irrefutable proof that you _hate_ that you can't deny the fact.

Apple periodically requires you to log into the mothership; Google can't.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

You clearly _hate_ that fact.
But the fact you hate facts about Apple products doesn't change the facts.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.
Except iKooks. They gather on Usenet to always defend their beloved Apple.

On 21/04/2022 19:22, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> What you're running into is the iKooks own an imaginary belief system
> that intimates their beloved product line has the basic functionality it
> lacks.

Apple is simply great, therefore anything that Apple does has to be the
best thing and for good reason..

Substitute God for Apple, and its just a standard religious mind set.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 21/04/2022 22:08, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>> except that's not what you said yesterday.
>>
>> according to *you*, 'all the languages do the same thing, essentially,
>> using a different syntax'.
>
> Jesus Chris. You _are_ still an idiot, nospam.
> Whether it's Fortran or Assembly Language or Java or Cotlin or whatever,
> they all do the same things with a different syntax.

In the end it is all just bits, in silicon

> Your claim that you can't do with Assembly Language what you can with, oh,
> say, Swift, just shows how ignorant you are when it comes to coding,
> nospam.
>
> As always, you iKooks have the confluence of three traits:
> a. Your self esteem is tied up with defending everything Apple does
> b. Your IQ is substandard
> c. Hence your education and knowledge level is also substandard.
>
> If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly
> Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
> Tell us one thing Swift can do that an Assembly Language program can't do.
> Name just one.

Catch insects at 50 mph on the wing?

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 2022-04-21 11:13 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> You would be surprised.
>>
>> Many industrial sites have either large levels of interference, are
>> covered in enough metal to prevent external mobile signals penetrating
>> or are simply in one of the many places where coveragee is patchy at
>> best.
>> Fortunately phones equipped with wifi calling can use the internet to
>> make calls
>
> What you're running into is the iKooks (Lewis, nospam, Jolly Roger, Alan
> Baker, et. al) are always making _excuses_ for why the iPhone lacks basic
> functionality that is (and always has been) in _most_ phones out there.
>
> What they _hate_ is the basic functionality isn't in their beloved iPhone.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

On 2022-04-21 2:10 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>>>> The point on that iPad is that Apple _requires_ periodic sign in,
>>>>> nospam.
>>>>
>>>> it does not.
>>>
>>> Then what's this?
>>>  <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>>
>> it's irrefutable proof that you're incredibly clueless, among other
>> things.
>
> No. It's irrefutable proof that you _hate_ that you can't deny the fact.
>
> Apple periodically requires you to log into the mothership; Google can't.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
> You clearly _hate_ that fact.
> But the fact you hate facts about Apple products doesn't change the facts.

Your claim was that if you don't log in...

....it bricks your iOS device.

That claim was false.

On 2022-04-21 11:14 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 19:22, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> What you're running into is the iKooks own an imaginary belief system
>> that intimates their beloved product line has the basic functionality
>> it lacks.
>
> Apple is simply great, therefore anything that Apple does has to be the
> best thing and for good reason..
>
> Substitute God for Apple, and its just a standard religious mind set.
>
>

LOLOLOLLLOLOLOLLLOLLLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOOL

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Apple is simply great, therefore anything that Apple does has to be the
> best thing and for good reason..
>
> Substitute God for Apple, and its just a standard religious mind set.

You understand those iKooks well (Alan Baker, nospam, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
et. al), where a noticeably huge _difference_ between these iKooks and the
religious zealots is that these iKooks _also_ lack any ability whatsoever to
respond to facts in an adult conversation about Apple in an adult manner.

Just watch.

Their brains are that of kindergarten children for some strange reason.
--
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> Jesus Chris. You _are_ still an idiot, nospam.
>> Whether it's Fortran or Assembly Language or Java or Cotlin or whatever,
>> they all do the same things with a different syntax.
>
> In the end it is all just bits, in silicon

You know that, and I know that, but the iKooks like nospam lack any
education to speak of so they're not aware that there isn't anything you
can't do in assembly language that can be done in a higher-level language.

>> Tell us one thing Swift can do that an Assembly Language program can't do.
>> Name just one.
>
> Catch insects at 50 mph on the wing?

For example, for some strange reason, they thing there's "magic" in Apple's
Swift when it doesn't do anything that you can't do with assembly languages.

They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
_ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.

These low-IQ ill-educated iKooks don't even understand what that means.
--
Usenet is where kind-hearted people daily gather to voluntarily help others.
Except for the iKooks. They're here only to defend Apple at all costs.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:08:06 +0100
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly
> Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.

I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level
languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable,
maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and
complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 22/04/2022 08:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:08:06 +0100
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly
>> Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
>
> I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level
> languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable,
> maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and
> complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.
>
Well yes and no.
You would be surprised at how many "#ifdef X86" a linux kernel probably
has. And how many compiler optimisations may need to be tweaked to port
software between different targets.

Not to mention issues with stack depths allowed, or whether a processor
even has a stack...
Lets say high level languages help in writing portable software.

--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

In article <t3sh38$rh3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Whether it's Fortran or Assembly Language or Java or Cotlin or whatever,
> they all do the same things with a different syntax.

kotlin, and no.

>
> If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in Assembly
> Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.

comments such as that confirms what everyone already knew, that you
know absolutely nothing about software development and writing apps,
mobile or desktop.

> Tell us one thing Swift can do that an Assembly Language program can't do.
> Name just one.

both you and your broken scripts are boring.

In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.

one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
there are any changes.

you're not fooling anyone.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:52 -0400
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
> > _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>
> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for

I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or
blowing an eprom.

Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't
yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom
for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:20:55 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 22/04/2022 08:32, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:08:06 +0100
> > Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you can do something in, oh, say, Swift, that can't be done in
> >> Assembly Language, then tell us what that is, nospam.
> >
> > I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high
> > level languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large,
> > portable, maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly
> > too large and complex to be written in assembler and have been for
> > decades.
> >
> Well yes and no.
> You would be surprised at how many "#ifdef X86" a linux kernel probably
> has. And how many compiler optimisations may need to be tweaked to port
> software between different targets.

Oh there's assembler in kernels it's just writing the whole thing
in assembler that has become infeasible - for portability and maintenance
reasons. Modern kernel design goes to great lengths to minimise and isolate
hardware dependencies.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:52 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>
> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
> storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
> there are any changes.
>
> you're not fooling anyone.

Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
you do it with an (e)prom programmer.
the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be
uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex
keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
this approach.

--
Must be over 21.