On 4/19/2022 12:26 PM, Alan wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

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

OTOH, when going through those areas the user is likely to be in their
vehicle which will have an FM radio with superior reception quality.

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.

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

very few.

the opposite, where there's cellular service but little to no
terrestrial radio, is far more common, especially in the obscure places
you keep citing about verizon's supposedly fantastic coverage.

and even if there is fm radio in such places, the selection of stations
is very limited, usually with nothing of interest.

> OTOH, when going through those areas the user is likely to be in their
> vehicle which will have an FM radio with superior reception quality.

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.

On 4/19/2022 12:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>> In message <t3mohd$u0j$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> Do they? I couldn't find a single example
>>>
>>
>> I just tried my Galaxy A5,and that worked as an FM radio (with data and
>> WiFi turned off). Not brilliant, but better than nothing. The
>> earphone/mic lead also acts as the aerial.
>
> My previous Huawei phones had FM radios and my current Samsung Galaxy
> A51 has one as well.
>
> I wish someone would sell FM radios, so I don't have to buy
> smartphones all the time!

LOL. At least most radio stations do free streaming of their OTA content
so if you have unlimited data there's no cost. This kind of makes sense
since the more listeners they have the more they can charge for advertising.

It actually would be nice to have a smart phone with a TV tuner since at
least in the U.S. local TV stations don't follow the same free model as
radio stations and you can't stream the same, free, live, OTA content.

There was a service called Locast, that for $5 per month "donation" let
you stream your local channels, but they got sued by the TV networks and
had to shut down in 2021.

On the surface, you'd think that TV stations would want their commercial
programming to reach as wide of an audience as possible since
advertising rates are based on viewership. But the issue was that cable
and satellite providers pay the TV networks to rebroadcast OTA channels
over cable and satellite but Locast wasn't paying anything. The largest
cable provider, Comcast, now charges $49.95 per month, plus tax, to get
local TV channels in HD ($29.95 + $9.95 HD Technology Fee + $10
broadcast TV fee + tax), though there are bundles with broadband that
reduce this cost somewhat.

In article <t3nckm$t6k$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> At least most radio stations do free streaming of their OTA content
> so if you have unlimited data there's no cost.

there's no cost for using wifi, which is how most people stream.

> This kind of makes sense
> since the more listeners they have the more they can charge for advertising.

many ads are skipped on streams, one reason being local content.

> It actually would be nice to have a smart phone with a TV tuner since at
> least in the U.S. local TV stations don't follow the same free model as
> radio stations and you can't stream the same, free, live, OTA content.

yes you can by using a network tuner on the local network, and for
those so inclined, it can be configured to be remotely accessible for
when away from home.

nospam wrote:

>> One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
>> (compared to that of the Intel MPUs).
>
> yet you don't know the proper terminology, known as little-endian and
> big-endian, and you also don't know that the power pc supported both.

I wrote assembly code, nospam, for both the IBM (oh, what was it... 1130?...
that was a loooong time ago, actually, I think it was the 1130 and then the
370 which was a much bigger machine - but anyway - of course I know about
little endian and big endian memory addressing).

Hell... I even have the assembly language books to prove it! :)
<https://i.postimg.cc/HxQRxZzy/books12.jpg> Assembly language programming
Although the SAMS paperbacks for the Motorola MPUs fell apart long ago.

I was working with a consortium that was working on the design of the Power
PC where I didn't do any coding for them - I ran a team that supported their
project (which failed in the end). Too bad. They were all good people.

Smart too. Nothing like the iKooks here who are morons in comparison.

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.

However, I didn't know the Power PC supported both as I didn't do any coding
on the Power PC. I just knew that memory addressing became less intuitive
when I moved from the Motorola to the Intel CPUs. No big deal though.

So thanks for that tidbit.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> "hex coding" ... "memory order" ...
> LOL... what an idiot.

This is how I know Jolly Roger has an IQ no greater than about 40.
Hex coding indeed.

HINT: Clearly Jolly Roger never programmed an EPROM in his life.

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Now you've done it... Photos of old crufty books incoming!

OK... if you _really_ want to see some of my old books, here they are!
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno
<https://i.postimg.cc/C5mRvN4H/books09.jpg> Old school vector transmission
<https://i.postimg.cc/rw8V0jfj/books10.jpg> Index for coronaviridae entries
<https://i.postimg.cc/6qdCpK0Y/books11.jpg> The Microelectronics Bible
<https://i.postimg.cc/HxQRxZzy/books12.jpg> Assembly language programming

The assembly language stuff was added today just for you.
--
HINT: You've never read even _one_ textbook in your entire life, JR.

nospam wrote:

>> Dude. Then explain this message if Apple doesn't _require_ periodic login:
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/nrFHSvby/appleid11.jpg>
>
> what part of 'sign in again' is not clear?

The point on that iPad is that Apple _requires_ periodic sign in, nospam.
Do you finally agree to that which I've been telling you for years now?

The difference here is:
Apple requires you to sign into the mothership periodically; Google can't.

All you low-IQ morons deny that fact simply because you _hate_ that fact.

> nothing has been disabled.
>
> if it had, you wouldn't have been able to get anywhere near that far.

I have _multiple_ iPads, nospam, where I've been running the tests.
That you don't comprehend that after all these years is worrisome.

> enter your apple id (likely autofilled) and the password, and it will
> update whatever it needs to update.

Nope. Not gonna do it. The iPad is a toy that I simply use to learn on.
What I'm learning is that Apple _requires_ periodic login.

You denied that.
And yet, you were wrong.

Do you finally agree that Apple _requires_ periodic login nospam?
--
Apple requires you to sign into the mothership periodically; Google can't.

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>

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

The reason you low-IQ iKooks deny these facts is because you _hate_ them.

In article <t3nmik$84h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> One nice thing for hex coding was that the memory order made sense
> >> (compared to that of the Intel MPUs).
> >
> > yet you don't know the proper terminology, known as little-endian and
> > big-endian, and you also don't know that the power pc supported both.
>
> I wrote assembly code, nospam, for both the IBM (oh, what was it... 1130?...
> that was a loooong time ago, actually, I think it was the 1130 and then the
> 370 which was a much bigger machine -

bullshit. you can't even get android sample code working and you expect
people to believe you wrote assembly?

> but anyway - of course I know about
> little endian and big endian memory addressing).

then why didn't you use the correct terminology?

> Hell... I even have the assembly language books to prove it! :)

of course you do, and along with the book on vacuum tubes, you were
able to write software for a vacuum tube computer.

In article <t3nnau$eb4$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.

> The iPad is a toy that I simply use to learn on.

that plan is not working out the way you might have hoped.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

> And from the news TODAY:
> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/

�Goodbye Tracking? Impact of iOS App Tracking Transparency and Privacy Labels*
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03556.pdf>
"Our findings suggest that tracking companies, especially larger ones
with access to large troves of first party, still track users behind
the scenes. They can do this through a range of methods, including using
IP addresses to link installation-specific IDs across apps and through
the sign-in functionality provided by individual apps (e.g. Google
or Facebook sign-in, or email address). Especially in combination
with further user and device characteristics, which our data confirmed
are still widely collected by tracking companies, it would be possible
to analyse user behaviour across apps and websites (i.e. fingerprinting
and cohort tracking). A direct result of the ATT could therefore be
that existing power imbalances in the digital tracking ecosystem get
reinforced.

We even found a real-world example of Umeng, a subsidiary of the
Chinese tech company Alibaba, using their server-side code to provide
apps with a fingerprinting-derived cross-app identifier...
The use of fingerprinting is in violation of Apple's policies,
and raises questions around to what extent the company is able to
enforce its policies. ATT might ultimately encourage a shift of
tracking technologies behind the scenes, so that they are outside of
Apple's reach. In other words, Apple's new rules might lead to even
less transparency around tracking than we currently have, including
for academic researchers."

Thanks for that news story as the low-IQ iKooks _hate_ anything that bursts
their self-esteem bubble when it shows what Apple _really_ is in the flesh.
�*Apple's landmark App Tracking Transparency may not be as tough as some people think.(
� <https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/04/a-year-after-apple-enforces-app-tracking-policy-covert-ios-tracking-remains/>
"On average, the research found, apps that claimed they didn't collect
user data nonetheless contained 1.8 tracking libraries and contacted
2.5 tracking companies. Of apps that used SKAdNetwork, Google Firebase
Analytics, and Google Crashlytics, more than half failed to disclose
having access to user data. The Facebook SDK fared slightly better
with about a 47 percent failure rate."

Unlike the low-IQ iKooks, I'll not only click on the reference, and I'll
_read_ the reference, but I'll also _understand_ what it informs us.

"Research published last week suggests that ATT, as it's usually
abbreviated, doesn't always curb the surreptitious collection of
personal data or the fingerprinting of users...

Loopholes in the framework also provided the opportunity for companies,
particularly large ones like Google and Facebook, to work around the
protections and stockpile even more data. The paper warned that despite
Apple's promise for more transparency, ATT might give many users a
false sense of security..."

The researchers also found Apple to be lax in enforcing their own rules.
"The researchers identified nine iOS apps that used server-side code
to generate a mutual user identifier that a subsidiary of the Chinese
tech company Alibaba can use for cross-app tracking. "The sharing of
device information for purposes of fingerprinting would be in
violation of Apple's policies" [had Apple done any testing, that is]

What's potentially worse is this observation in that article:
"Apple isn't required to follow the policy in many cases, making it
possible for Apple to further add to the stockpile of data it collects.

But worse than that still...
"They noted that Apple also exempts tracking for purposes of "obtaining
information on a consumer's creditworthiness for the specific purpose
of making a credit determination."

WTF? What's that about?

nospam wrote:

>> Try learning to read
>
> take your own advice.
>
> you are mindlessly blaming apple for the actions of ad tracking
> companies, who ignored the user's choice to not be tracked and tracked
> them anyway.

I agree with Jan Panteltje that nospam needs to learn how to read.
They explicitly blamed Apple in multiple ways.

What I said would happen _always_ happens with these low-IQ iKooks.
They brazenly _deny_ any fact you post _without_ even reading it.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect they _hate_ what Apple is so they deny what Apple does.

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. ; )

--
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

nospam wrote:

>> The fact that you can't make an iOS browser private
>
> it's private by design.

I've never met people in the flesh who still believed in the Easter Bunny.
But you low-IQ iKooks believe in all imaginary things marketing tells you.

Apple tells you it's "private by design" in their glossy marketing ads.
And you believe it.

Nobody intelligent believes it.
But you do.

Worse, you deny all facts that show what Apple is and what Apple does.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you hate that what Apple is, isn't at all what Apple says it is.
--
I don't care iKooks are child-like with a low-IQ, no education & low self
esteem; but due to that, they're so upset that Apple always lies to them.

nospam wrote:

> fm radio is almost never used on a phone for a number of reasons,

What's consistent about you are your inconsistent myriad excuses for what
is, in effect, always an almost complete lack of basic iPhone functionality.

nospam wrote:

> smartphone apps can receive many hundreds if not thousands of fm radio
> stations from anywhere in the world, along with many other sources, and
> without the need to use headphones.

What nospam is always doing is creating myriad excuses for the lack of basic
functionality in the iPhone even when his excuses can't hold water because
if you _need_ a real FM radio, you're not likely to have good Internet.

But it doesn't matter _which_ excuse nospam panders to us, because in the
end two things are always the same with _all_ of nospam's myriad excuses.

1. Apple iPhones lack the basic functionality that most phones have
2. Hence, nospam claims that nobody ever needs basic functionality

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect nospam _hates_ that Apple never is what Apple says it is.
--
I don't care iKooks are child-like with a low-IQ, no education & low self
esteem; but due to that, they're so upset that Apple always lies to them.

nospam wrote:

>>>Since no iPhone ever had FM radio...
>>
>> Really?
>
> really. nor do almost all android phones as well as feature phones.
> it's not something that is in any demand, let alone high demand.

Why does nospam brazenly deny what _nobody_ intelligent would deny?
Could it be that nospam _hates_ that the iPhone lacks basic functionality?

Like Dunning & Kruger wondered about the brain of the lemon-juice bank
robber, I wonder why kind of "adult?" thinks the Easter Bunny is real?

This nospam is one of those low-IQ people who believe in fantasies.
We covered the number of phones with FM radio many times.

This nospam can't learn something as simple as a fact.
Why?

I don't know why.

I suspect nospam _hates_ that the iPhone doesn't have even the most basic
functionality so nospam claims that nobody wants it even as 59% of all
phones made in the last five years have this standard basic functionality.
--
<https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2019&sAvailabilities=1>
2204 phones
<https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2018&chkFMradio=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2>
1301

Jan Panteltje wrote:

>>really. nor do almost all android phones as well as feature phones.
>>it's not something that is in any demand, let alone high demand.
>
> Bullshit
> Go away

Jan,
The fact is that 61% of the Android phones out there have the FM radio.
Hence, you're realizing something that is _consistent_ with these iKooks.

First, the fact is that their beloved iPhone lacks basic functionality.
(It doesn't matter which functionality by the way, but it's FM for now.)

Then, the iKooks, whose entire self esteem is wrapped inextricably
intertwined with Apple marketing promises of superiority, _hate_ that fact.

The iKooks own an imaginary belief system that defies all logic & reason.
Hence, facts are a _danger_ to all of these iKooks.

The fact is almost sixty percent of phones made today have the FM radio.
And yet, nospam will claim sixty percent is almost none.

When you remove Apple from that equation, it's even worse for nospam:
Of 2048 Android phones made in the past five years, 1248 have FM radios.

That's 61% of all Android phones in use today have the FM radio.
Out of them, it's _zero_ iPhones that have this basic functionality.

One thing you'll note is that it doesn't matter _what_ the functionality is
that the iPhone lacks (whether it's an sdlot, a charger, a 3.5mm jack, a
modern sized battery, or an FM radio), the iKooks _hate_ that their beloved
iPhone lacks even these, the most basic of common standard functionalities.

So... they make up their own imaginary belief system that assumes nobody
wants them, even though _most_ phones have these basic functionalities.

In essence, their excuses are the same because the problem is the same.
The iPhone _always_ lacks basic hardware & software functionality.

That's what they hate about these facts.
They have no _adult_ defense to these facts.
Just watch.
--
You can't make those ungodly profits off of an intelligent customer base.

REFERENCE
<https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2018&sAvailabilities=1,2&sOSes=2>
https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2018&chkFMradio=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&sOSes=2

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>> And while a good many phones do have FM as a feature, I would be a lot
>> of money that most people never use it or are even aware of it.
>
> Do they? I couldn't find a single example

61% of Android phones made in the last five years have the FM radio
functionality but _zero_ percent of the iPhone has this functionality.

As always, the iPhone lacks basic functionality (both hardware & software).

That's why you'll always see the iKooks claim nobody needs basic
functionality (it's only because they _hate_ they don't have it).

Doesn't matter if it's the sdslot, or the charger, or the fast charger, or
the bigger battery, or the 3.5mm jack, or the removable battery, or the
almost total lack of software utilities - it's always the same issue.

a. *The iPhone lacks basic hardware & software functionality*
b. They _hate_ that the iPhone lacks all this basic functionality
c. So they deny that anyone would ever want any basic functionality

Just watch.
(You can predict them years in advance.)
--
<https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2018&sAvailabilities=1,2&sOSes=2>
<https://www.gsmarena.com/search.php3?nYearMin=2018&chkFMradio=selected&sAvailabilities=1,2&sOSes=2>

Adrian wrote:

> I just tried my Galaxy A5,and that worked as an FM radio (with data and
> WiFi turned off). Not brilliant, but better than nothing. The
> earphone/mic lead also acts as the aerial.

Well, it's basic functionality after all.

What the iPhone always lacks is basic hardware & software functionality.

What the iKooks _hate_ is that the iPhone always lacks basic functionality.

So, they claim that nobody wants any basic functionality.

Even though _most phones_ have this basic functionality.

nospam wrote:

> the opposite, where there's cellular service but little to no
> terrestrial radio, is far more common, especially in the obscure places
> you keep citing about verizon's supposedly fantastic coverage.

The fact is clear that the iPhone always lacks basic functionality.

All of nospam's excuses are simply a red herring since that fact remains.

What nospam will do is concoct myriad excuses for _why_ his beloved iPhone
lacks the most basic of standard functionality...

*But the fact always remains that the iPhone lacks basic functionality.*

sms wrote:

> There's an Android OTG USB-C adapter for receiving ATSC digital TV
> broadcasts on Android phones and tablets. See
> <https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GPB6VFX>. It comes with two antennas.

Bear in mind you can _mirror_ your android phone onto your PC monitor
(once you get that TV signal, for example, on your Android phone)

To mirror Android on Windows over USB:
C:\> adb devices
C:\> scrcpy
Both commands are in this zip file <https://github.com/Genymobile/scrcpy>

To mirror Android on Windows over Wi-Fi:
C:\> adb connect 192.168.0.2:5555
C:\> scrcpy
Where the "192.168.0.2" is the IP address of your phone on your LAN.

To take a movie of the entire session (on either USB or over Wi-Fi):
C:\> scrcpy --record foo.mp4
C:\> scrcpy -r bar.mkv

There is an option to rotate sideways and to fill the monitor screen.

nospam 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 and the fact you don't know that proves my point about you.

>> but anyway - of course I know about
>> little endian and big endian memory addressing).
>
> then why didn't you use the correct terminology?

Your lack of education is why you think everyone has to speak only in terms
that you are cognizant of, particularly in a hastily written informal post.

>> Hell... I even have the assembly language books to prove it! :)
>
> of course you do, and along with the book on vacuum tubes, you were
> able to write software for a vacuum tube computer.

The fact remains that you _hate_ that you have no education nospam.

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>