Jolly Roger wrote:

>> The fact remains that I tested what you low-IQ morons denied for years.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
>
> Arlen desperately wants you to ignore the "Not Now" button in the above
> screenshot - just like he wants you to think that clicking that button
> will supposedly result in your device suddenly bricking itself for no
> reason. He's such a lazy troll. : )

Hehhehheh... Every time Jolly Roger is confronted with a fact he hates
(which is a lot of times), he calls _all_ facts, trolls.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect he _hates_ that it's correct that Apple requires that login
periodically to the mothership, to the point that the iOS device will nag
you every day all day - because what I said is true.

Apple requires _periodic_ logging into the mothership; Google can't.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>

>> Apple requires you to periodically sign into the mothership; Google can't.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>
> Arlen desperately wants you to ignore the fact that he had to dig deep
> down into Settings to find that message - a message he could ignore if
> he wanted to, but doesn't, because: troll. He's a lazy, old fool. ; )

What's amazing is that these iKooks don't realize these messages happen
_every_ single time you open the iPad up - which is every single day.

And they're right there on the home screen - but the iKooks have to deny
that fact because they _hate_ that it is a fact indeed.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>]

>> The reason you low-IQ iKooks deny these facts is because you _hate_ them.
>
> Notice how he hasn't stated a single fact in this thread. All Arlen has
> are shitty opinions and lame insults. ; )

The intelligent people will note I supplied screenshots which are the facts.
And they'll also note the iKooks _deny_ the existence of those facts.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect the iKooks _hate_ that Apple never is what Apple fed them to
believe it was.

The iKooks own an entirely imaginary belief system that is destroyed by
facts; so... they simply deny that the facts even exist.

And yet... they do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg> Apple _forces_ a log in!
<https://i.postimg.cc/g008YhxP/appleid02.jpg> Apple _forces_ a lock out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/q75t7MSk/appleid03.jpg> Apple _disables_ your acct!
<https://i.postimg.cc/8zSvshQf/appleid04.jpg> Apple _locks_ you out!
<https://i.postimg.cc/SKGfmgnK/appleid05.jpg> Apple won't let you back in!
<>
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZR5mZ287/appleid07.jpg> Apple fails App Store test
<https://i.postimg.cc/TwN6P0QR/appleid08.jpg> Only Apple requires a login
<https://i.postimg.cc/8k3GQyj4/appleid09.jpg> Apple tracks your activity
<https://i.postimg.cc/hhFNJ5mq/appleid010.jpg> Apps become non functional
<https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg> Apple _forces_ extra logins!
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y9kkj19v/appleid12.jpg> Apple tracking server login
<>
<https://i.postimg.cc/gj0r2cBP/osupdate01.jpg> iOS 13.5 to iOS 15.3.1
<https://i.postimg.cc/sfZ0XP71/osupdate02.jpg> Deleting Siri stuff works
<https://i.postimg.cc/nLjqk2HD/osupdate03.jpg> Even iOS updates work
<https://i.postimg.cc/bJPKDSZ1/osupdate04.jpg> Can't download an app twice
<https://i.postimg.cc/Gt39Q7Pp/osupdate05.jpg> iCloud TOC is again accepted
<>
<https://i.postimg.cc/hvCnqdj4/trust01.jpg> 9:35PM PC trust established
<https://i.postimg.cc/qMzV3gqn/trust02.jpg> 9:36PM PC trust required again!
All that simply because I refused to be locked inside the walled garden.

Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2022-04-20, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> Still rocking my 1st gen iPad, iPhone 4, and so on here. Arlen's a
>>> clueless idiot who locks himself out of his own devices just so he can
>>> turn around and troll the Apple newsgroups with bullshit fabricated
>>> stories.
>>
>> The fact remains that I tested what you low-IQ morons denied for years.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
>
> Arlen desperately wants you to ignore the "Not Now" button in the above
> screenshot - just like he wants you to think that clicking that button
> will supposedly result in your device suddenly bricking itself for no
> reason. He's such a lazy troll. : )
>
>> Apple requires you to periodically sign into the mothership; Google can't.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>
> Arlen desperately wants you to ignore the fact that he had to dig deep
> down into Settings to find that message - a message he could ignore if
> he wanted to, but doesn't, because: troll. He's a lazy, old fool. ; )
>
>> The reason you low-IQ iKooks deny these facts is because you _hate_ them.
>
> Notice how he hasn't stated a single fact in this thread. All Arlen has
> are shitty opinions and lame insults. ; )
>

Well, maybe so, but he's always good for a laff.

Relax. Don't take him so seriously.

nospam wrote:

>>>> the primary reason was to encourage the purchase of AirPods.
>>>
>>> that is absolutely false.
>>
>> Especially considering Apple included a set of Lightning headphones in
>> the box at the time. : )
>
> *and* they included a lightning adapter.
>
> it's hard to encourage buying something new when *two* solutions are
> provided in the box.

What did they provide in the box for the last set of 190 million iPhone 12
and iPhone 13 sold so far, nospam?

Jolly Roger wrote:

>>>> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason
>>>> Apple removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy
>>>> it back.
>>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>> Yes, he is incorrect. the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
>> of AirPods.
>
> Just because you say so? Nah. No sale, sorry.

Apple saved 6.5 billion dollars alone, and made many billions more JR.

<https://screenrant.com/apple-saved-billions-removing-chargers-boxes/>
<https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/03/14/apple-reportedly-6-billion-removing-charger-earpods-box/>
<https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-saved-billions-removing-accessories-from-boxes_id139005>
<https://techstory.in/apple-reportedly-saved-in-billions-with-removing-chargers-earpods-from-box/>
<https://tech.hindustantimes.com/mobile/news/how-much-apple-saved-by-removing-charger-earpods-from-iphone-12-box-71610289652370.html>

I guess facts don't play any role in the iKook's imaginary belief systems.

In message <jc96vsFfi7kU1@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Notice how he hasn't stated a single fact in this thread.

This thread? Has the shitbag ever stated a single fact in any thread?

--
I'm from a predominately black family --Eddie Murphy

Hank Rogers wrote:

> Well, maybe so, but he's always good for a laff.

I'm going to give you one more of these kindergarten no-content completely
childish always non technical responses before I plonk you "Hank Rogers".

One more. And then plonk. No warning. Just plonk.

If you can't ever contribute as an adult to the actual topic, then plonking
you _improves_ the value of the conversation here on this newsgroup.

One more.
Then plonk.

Lewis wrote:

> Has the shitbag ever stated a single fact in any thread?

Before I said the iKooks in this thread were:
a. Alan Baker (everyone has him plonked as he cannot add value)
b. nospam (most people keep him as he "can" add value
c. Jolly Roger (filled with kindergarten hateful vitriol)

And now, we have Jolly Roger's twin in kindergarten hate-filled vitriol:
d. Lewis

For those who don't know, Lewis & Jolly Roger _hate_ every fact about Apple
because the facts _hurt_ them deeply since they _believe_ everything Apple
told them.

I liken both of them to the fifth grade bully who was held back a few years,
when someone who is years younger in the same grade tells him Santa isn't
real.

Lewis: Santa exists. He's gonna give me an iPhone for Christmas.
Child: That's just a marketing gimmick. Your parents are Santa.

Lewis. No. I hate you! He exists! I saw him on an Apple advertisement.
Child: That's how marketing works, Lewis. Don't believe Apple ads.

Lewis: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! Apple said it. It must be true!

What Jolly Roger does is call all facts trolls; and what Lewis does is call
all people who tell them facts, "shitbags". Just watch.

You can ask _why_ facts are so scary to these people but if you understand
the Santa analogy, the fact alone _destroys_ their cuddly belief systems.

They not only hate the facts - but they hate the mere messenger of facts.
Just watch.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Its not 'as if', it *is*.

You seem to be able to see things like they truly are.

I agree with you that the iKooks (Jolly Roger, nospam, Alan Baker, et. al),
own completly imaginary belief systems fed to them directly by Apple.

They are _desperate_ to maintain those imaginary belief systems.
The problem is that facts instantly _destroy_ imaginary belief systems.

Unless.... ... ... ... ...

Unless they _deny_ that the facts exist.
Then... ... ... ... ...

Then they can maintain their imaginary belief systems intact.

> We all know these sorts of people. They dint know how to verify any
> knowledge for themselves so their validation consists in choosing who to
> believe.
> My dear sister even said that 'well it depends which websites you believe'

You understand them well.

They believe _everything_ Apple feeds them to believe.
It never occurs to them that the narrative is the same.

For example, Apple fed them that it was the chemistry of batteries that made
them secretly throttle certain iPhones on certain iOS versions and then that
chemistry made Apple secretly cover it up by backdating edited release
notes.

It doesn't even _occur_ to the iKooks that it can't possibly be that Apple
has a special battery chemistry that only works on a certain iOS version and
that only works on certain iPhones with that certain iOS version.

These iKooks like nospam believe whatever Apple feeds them to believe.
> As she assured me that German government was lying about its own nuclear
> power but was telling the exact truth about Chernobyl, that it was going
> to kill 1/4 million people. And cover it up. Somehow.
>
> Its called doublethink.

You are astute.

There is a lot that is Orwellian about these iKooks, who, in this thread,
are the triad of Alan Baker, Jolly Roger & nospam - where everyone has Alan
Baker plonked, and most plonk Jolly Roger - but nospam has some technical
acumen when it's not related to defending everything Apple says and does, to
the death, no matter what.

>
> I call these people in general ArtSuidents™ because what is important to
> them is the emotional and moral tenor of their lives. They buy Apple
> tech and German cars, because it makes them feel superior and good
> about themselves. Another habit they have was vest describe by Rudyard
> Kipling - and acute psychologist - in 'the Jungle Book'.
>
> "We are the greatest and the wisest people in the jungle...what we think
> to day the world will think tomorrow ... we all say it, so it must be true!"
>
> Bandar Log. The monkey people.

You appear to be well read.

You are correct that their own self esteem is in the toilet (rightly so),
hence they derive a large portion of their self esteem from what Apple feeds
them, much like the ArtStudents you speak of.

They actually _believe_ every excuse Apple feeds them (e.g., it's
"courageous") each time the iPhone loses its standard basic functionality.

> They are not stupid people, they are that most dangerous of species,
> people who are a bit smart, but think they are a lot smarter than they
> are, and as smart as anybody else.

Here's where I beg to differ as both Alan Baker and Jolly Roger I assess to
own a 40 IQ based on their almost total inability to comprehend the subject
matter and on their responses always being at about the kindergarten level.

As for nospam, he's at least double that IQ (still well below normal), which
I base on the fact that nospam _can_ comprehend the basic technical facts.

Where nospam shows he is substandard in IQ is his lack of an _adult_
response to facts he has no defense to, other than to deny them outright.

That's why, for example, you saw nospam claim what he does about the 3.5mm
jack and the FM radio, where he has no _adult_ response to the facts.

If he were of at least average intelligence, his response would be different
than simply denying that anyone would ever want what is, in effect, the most
standard of the most common of the most basic of common functionality.
> But they are intellectually lazy: the short cut of simply receiving
> someone else's wisdom instead of the hard work of acquiring some
> themselves, is simply too tempting

Well, you do have a point.

When we covered the insecure nature of the iPhone, they constantly spewed
the advertising that Apple fed them, instead of thinking for themselves.

They lack the basic adult ability of independent thought processes, is what
I'm hearing you say; is that right?

> In a political context they are called 'useful idiots' : they will latch
> on to any 'new' idea and support it with fervour simply in order to be
> as they see it 'ahead of the game'.
>
> Marketing to this group consists in generating an emotional narrative
> about the product that presents it in the light of being 'new,
> promising, and full of hope - the obvious choice of an intelligent
> person', Rather than 'true, useful, tried and tested'

Here again you seem to completely understand how Apple has them on a leash!

They latch on to the loss of the 3.5mm jack as being "courageous", so they
themselves feel so very courageous when they strut about with their iPhone
that is missing the functionality.

Apple took away the functionality and made them feel _brave_ about doing it.

> Or as the Daily Mash put it 'clever science man say new shiny thing make
> everything better'

We ran a study a few years ago showing almost all consumer electronics gets
better, faster, and cheaper over time ... except ... Apple products.

The reason is MARKETING of that "shiny thing" creates a demand in these
impressionable people you speak of - which drives up the prices.

> Whenever you detect a potential emotional bias to a narrative, the
> implication that those not 'with it' are incurable Neanderthals, an/or
> research that implies that '97% of everybody who counts believes in it'
> you may be sure its snake oil...

I think you understand them well in calling them incurable neanderthals.
The three that are in this thread are nospam, Jolly Roger & Alan Baker.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Hank Rogers wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe so, but he's always good for a laff.
>
> I'm going to give you one more of these kindergarten no-content
> completely
> childish always non technical responses before I plonk you "Hank
> Rogers".
>
> One more. And then plonk. No warning. Just plonk.
>
> If you can't ever contribute as an adult to the actual topic, then
> plonking
> you _improves_ the value of the conversation here on this newsgroup.
>
> One more. Then plonk.

Hey, no fair! I just think you're a real funny guy. Sort of like
don rickles. It's a hoot when you get all the ikooks worked up. And
I love your book pics. You should be on stage!

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> Has the shitbag ever stated a single fact in any thread?
>
> Before I said the iKooks in this thread were:
> a. Alan Baker (everyone has him plonked as he cannot add value)
> b. nospam (most people keep him as he "can" add value
> c. Jolly Roger (filled with kindergarten hateful vitriol)
>
> And now, we have Jolly Roger's twin in kindergarten hate-filled
> vitriol:
> d. Lewis
>
> For those who don't know, Lewis & Jolly Roger _hate_ every fact
> about Apple
> because the facts _hurt_ them deeply since they _believe_
> everything Apple
> told them.
>
> I liken both of them to the fifth grade bully who was held back a
> few years,
> when someone who is years younger in the same grade tells him Santa
> isn't
> real.
>
>  Lewis: Santa exists. He's gonna give me an iPhone for Christmas.
>  Child: That's just a marketing gimmick. Your parents are Santa.
>
>  Lewis. No. I hate you! He exists! I saw him on an Apple
> advertisement.
>  Child: That's how marketing works, Lewis. Don't believe Apple ads.
>
>  Lewis: Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! Apple said it. It must be true!
> What Jolly Roger does is call all facts trolls; and what Lewis does
> is call
> all people who tell them facts, "shitbags". Just watch.
>
> You can ask _why_ facts are so scary to these people but if you
> understand
> the Santa analogy, the fact alone _destroys_ their cuddly belief
> systems.
>
> They not only hate the facts - but they hate the mere messenger of
> facts.
> Just watch.

Well, they might hate you, but I like you. I really enjoyed the
latest gallery of book photos you posted.

On 2022-04-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <t3n76u$ibl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And where do you go that has FM coverage...
>>>
>>> ...but no cellular data?
>>
>> You're assuming that everyone has unlimited data with which to stream
>> radio stations.
>
> 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. At home, you pay your ISP for your own wifi (unless
you're leeching off your neighbour). It's not free - or always
available.

>> But actually, depending on the carrier, there are definitely places
>> where there is FM coverage but no cellular data.
>
> very few.

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.

> cellular coverage on highways is *more* common than fm, and if the
> audio is sent to the vehicle's sound system, it will be impossible
> to hear a difference.

Depends on where you are. Cell companies take great pains to ensure
good coverage along major highways, even out in the sticks. Go a
few miles on either side and the situation can be very different.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-04-19 8:08 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>>>> It's a red herring to discuss the pros and cons since the reason
>>>>> Apple removed the industry standard 3.5 mm jack was to make you buy
>>>>> it back.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Yes, he is incorrect. the primary reason was to encourage the purchase
>>> of AirPods.
>>
>> Just because you say so? Nah. No sale, sorry.
>
> Apple saved 6.5 billion dollars alone, and made many billions more JR.

That's just a lie.

On 4/19/2022 10:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-04-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <t3n76u$ibl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And where do you go that has FM coverage...
>>>>
>>>> ...but no cellular data?
>>>
>>> You're assuming that everyone has unlimited data with which to stream
>>> radio stations.
>>
>> 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. At home, you pay your ISP for your own wifi (unless
> you're leeching off your neighbour). It's not free - or always
> available.

nospam is wrong of course™.

When you're in a place with Wi-Fi you're also likely at a place with a
computer (at work) or a radio with good speakers and a good antenna (at
home or in the car).

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.

In article <t3ov9v$6k1$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> When you're in a place with Wi-Fi you're also likely at a place with a
> computer (at work) or a radio with good speakers and a good antenna (at
> home or in the car).

people stream on their phone because that's where their streaming apps
are, which would likely be prohibited on a work computer.

they can also listen to it on external speakers if they want, in a car
or at home. not so much at work, unless they have a private office.

no antenna can receive stations from more than about 50 miles away, the
limit for terrestrial radio.

> 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.

the fm radio on phones is almost never used, by anyone.

it's a checklist feature for the stupids.

In article <sRM7K.191020$yi_7.1486@fx39.iad>, Charlie Gibbs
<cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> >>> And where do you go that has FM coverage...
> >>>
> >>> ...but no cellular data?
> >>
> >> You're assuming that everyone has unlimited data with which to stream
> >> radio stations.
> >
> > 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. At home, you pay your ISP for your own wifi (unless
> you're leeching off your neighbour). It's not free - or always
> available.

bogus argument. an isp is used for far more than just radio streaming
and it's almost always available. it's possible it might drop once in a
while, but that's just life. nothing is 100% guaranteed, not even radio
stations.

> >> But actually, depending on the carrier, there are definitely places
> >> where there is FM coverage but no cellular data.
> >
> > very few.
>
> 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.

> > cellular coverage on highways is *more* common than fm, and if the
> > audio is sent to the vehicle's sound system, it will be impossible
> > to hear a difference.
>
> Depends on where you are. Cell companies take great pains to ensure
> good coverage along major highways, even out in the sticks. Go a
> few miles on either side and the situation can be very different.

except that in those sticks, there aren't very many radio stations, if
any, and whatever might be available is almost certain to not be of
interest.

another problem is if you do happen to find a good station, you will
quickly drive out of its range.

btdt.

you're actually making the point for cellular streaming, where it works
on the highways and can stream stations from anywhere in the world.

In article <t3nrrg$1pes$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> 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.

In article <t3nrpu$1p6i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > bullshit. you can't even get android sample code working and you expect
> > people to believe you wrote assembly?
>
> You're an idiot. Writing assembly language code is completely different than
> writing in Java

except that's not what you said yesterday.

according to *you*, 'all the languages do the same thing, essentially,
using a different syntax'.

In article <t3nmik$84h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> My assembly language coding was back in the 70's on the 1130/370's and my
> hex programming was on the 68701 in the 80's but the one thing I always
> hated was programming because I considered coding boring overall. All the
> languages do the same thing, essentially, using a different syntax, which,
> when I was young, I thought was neat but now I just think it's a waste of
> time. I'd rather test the software instead.

In message <t3ov9v$6k1$1@dont-email.me> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 10:27 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2022-04-19, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <t3n76u$ibl$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And where do you go that has FM coverage...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but no cellular data?
>>>>
>>>> You're assuming that everyone has unlimited data with which to stream
>>>> radio stations.
>>>
>>> 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. At home, you pay your ISP for your own wifi (unless
>> you're leeching off your neighbour). It's not free - or always
>> available.

> nospam is wrong of course™.

> When you're in a place with Wi-Fi you're also likely at a place with a
> computer (at work) or a radio with good speakers and a good antenna (at
> home or in the car).

> 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.

There you go again with your delusional bullshit that because YOU do
something (or claim you do) then EVERYONE does it.

Radio. Yes, I remember radio, it was something I listened to a lot in
the late 70s and 80s. It is also something I have not listened to since
2001 when I bought the first iPod.

Some people still listen to the radio, but only in their cars during
their commute. Most people do not. No one with the slightest sense would
listen to the radio on their phone when they have gigibytes of music on
it and millions of songs on their streaming service, as well and
countless hours of podcasts covering every possible topic imaginable,
and quite a few more besides.

Easy way to check this is the cratering of audience ratings for radio.

Businesses use Pandora, people use Spotify or Apple Music. No one is
using the radio.

--
I'm giving up eating chocolate for a month.
Correction: I'm giving up; eating chocolate for a month.

On 2022-04-20, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3nrrg$1pes$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> 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.

Arlen desperately wants people to ignore the fact that he had to dig
deep down in Settings to even find that message - a message he is
perfectly free to ignore. He actually believes the people reading his
useless trolls are too stupid to realize this - because he is that
stupid. ; )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In message <200420220907445303%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sRM7K.191020$yi_7.1486@fx39.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.

Not only is not representative, it is fucking weird. If your employees
who deal with the outside world are not available on their mobiles, that
is going to hurt your business quite a bit.

I have a good friend who works in logistics. He has an office and
supervises a team of about 25, and about 60% of his calls come in on his
work mobile phone. Why? Because the people he has to deal with are more
likely to be able to reach him wherever he is on that number than on the
office phone, and no one wants to all two numbers.

It's a weird business in 2022 that can be located somewhere with no cell
coverage.

--
"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time."

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

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

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™.

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.

In rural areas there are often businesses with no, or poor, cell
coverage. I ran into this up in New Hampshire last year. Fortunately the
business had free, albeit slow, Wi-Fi. At hotels and resorts in the
mountains there is often no coverage but they provide Wi-Fi.

In article <t3p41r$dm4$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

although they do exist, it's not many. it's actually relatively few.

also, if there's enough metal to interfere with mobile signals
penetrating into the building, then terrestrial radio won't work
either, which has a much longer wavelength and more easily blocked.

> Fortunately phones equipped with wifi calling can use the internet to
> make calls

if wifi calling works, then so will streaming audio (and video for that
matter).

the businesses could also get femto cells for inside the building to
improve cellular, which is common for many steel and concrete
buildings.

In article <t3p7d3$e03$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> 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.

radio reception inside a big box store is indeed limited, whereas
cellular almost always works.

that means there won't be an issue with streaming audio, not that very
many people listen to the radio inside a store. almost nobody, in fact.

you're making the opposite point you think you're making.

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

very rarely.

nothing is 100% guaranteed everywhere.

what you fail to understand is that the number of people for whom there
is no cellular or wifi at all is much less than the number of people
for whom there is no fm radio.

> I ran into this up in New Hampshire last year. Fortunately the
> business had free, albeit slow, Wi-Fi. At hotels and resorts in the
> mountains there is often no coverage but they provide Wi-Fi.

then streaming audio will work perfectly fine.

you're making the opposite point you think you're making.

On 2022-04-20, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> In message <200420220907445303%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <sRM7K.191020$yi_7.1486@fx39.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.

> Not only is not representative, it is fucking weird. If your employees
> who deal with the outside world are not available on their mobiles, that
> is going to hurt your business quite a bit.

Not really. We have plenty of land lines. (Remember them? They're
those things that have decent voice quality.)

> I have a good friend who works in logistics. He has an office and
> supervises a team of about 25, and about 60% of his calls come in on his
> work mobile phone. Why? Because the people he has to deal with are more
> likely to be able to reach him wherever he is on that number than on the
> office phone, and no one wants to all two numbers.

Oh no, an extra number in my phone book. Boo-hoo.

> It's a weird business in 2022 that can be located somewhere with no cell
> coverage.

I've always been attracted to weird businesses...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.