In article <6EgRJ.107157$SeK9.405@fx97.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
wrote:

> > drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.
>
> Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.

the tv/movie industry still requires drm.

it mostly annoys the honest people, since those who want to pirate are
going to pirate and don't care what the online services do.

> >>> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
> >>> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
> >>> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
> >>> they relaxed those requirements.
> >>
> >> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
> >> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
> >> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
> >> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.
> >
> > your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
> > before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
> > in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
> > without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
> > to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
> > expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.
>
> What I _do_ recall is that in addition to cancelling DRM, Apple also
> improved the quality of the music. If I remember correctly, they started
> out selling their music as 128kbps, DRMed and ended up with 256kbps and
> without.

you remember correctly.

> I will be the first to say that 256kbps AAC encoded with
> Apple's version of the codec is the best sound that you will get short
> of lossless, especially if the music is sold as an "Apple Digital
> Master." Vorbis is close though.

countless objective double-blind tests show that people do no better
than chance when comparing high quality mp3/aac and the original.

> > i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
> > forgotten service.
>
> I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
> if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
> the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
> there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
> would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
> anything at all to the sound.

i suspect it won't work with vorbis, so you would probably need to
transcode to mp3 or aac, which would only be needed for matching. there
was a plugin for vorbis in itunes but it looks like it's long dead.

> >> However, I am curious here. Let's say I have a few dozen songs in my
> >> library which are 96kbps MP3 but I have an Apple Music subscription.
> >> While I have the subscription, it's clear that I can listen to the
> >> entire library and that it will have quality on par with a 256kbps AAC.
> >> However, can I actually download this higher quality version while I am
> >> an Apple Music member and hold onto it even after I cancel or is it only
> >> available to me in the cloud, not downloadable and lost if I cancel?

....

> > so to answer your question, if your goal is to upgrade the quality of
> > some songs you already have, it's $25 to sign up for itunes match, let
> > it match your existing library, download the new versions (256kb aac)
> > and cancel at some point within the first year (unless you want to keep
> > it longer).
> >
> > one caveat is that matching is not always perfect. if a song has more
> > than one version (e.g., live & studio), it might get it wrong, which is
> > a good reason to keep the originals.
>
> I'll have to look into that. It sounds like a brilliant service for
> people such as myself who will actually hear the difference between a
> 128kbps and 320kbps music file.

the minimum is 96 kbps and it's a free upgrade, even without the piracy
amnesty.

i have heard that lower bit rates transcoded to 96k or higher can work
but i don't know how reliable that is.

> >> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
> >> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.
> >
> > thanks.
> >
> > buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
> > an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.
>
> Well, if people take the time to consider what you're saying, it
> definitely comes from a good place. The delivery is not as smooth as
> most of the people here would want but I guess I'm not as sensitive as
> most.

i tend to be blunt.

> To be honest, I was going to buy a MacBook Pro a few months ago when it
> was finally time to replace my aging gaming machine. The only reason I
> chose the one I have now is because I never thought it was possible to
> make a gaming laptop that's more or less the size of a MacBook Air. I
> regretted it at first when I got serious wireless issues, but
> everything's been resolved since. Were gaming not a consideration, I
> don't think I would have selected it.

what you have is a good choice for gaming.

different people have different priorities.

In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4.3920@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
wrote:

>
> I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
> going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
> have since bitten the dust.

there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be.

there is also a rather dumb date bug:
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp
se-narrowly-averted/>
The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded
using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster
would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010.
Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced
to buy a portable device produced within the last decade.
....
However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a
patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate
the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe
range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad
2100 running Newton OS 2.1.

on the other hand, macs don't have that issue.

> >>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
> >>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
> >>> that atari and amiga did not have.
> >>>
> >>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
> >>> much amiga or atari.
> >>
> >> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
> >> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
> >> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
> >> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
> >> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
> >> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
> >> even produce colour.
> >
> > true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.
> >
> > the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
> > was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
> > postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.
>
> Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a
> laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that
> Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact
> mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously
> challenge what was already established on the Mac side.

yep.

another feature of the original mac were two high speed serial ports
capable of up to 1 mbit/sec, which also supported inexpensive appletalk
networking. nothing else at the time could do that. appletalk networks
were very common, especially with phonenet, which used ordinary phone
cord.

> I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
> 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
> computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
> Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
> definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
> give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
> laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
> at home.

the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both
appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later
ones were nowhere near as heavy.

> > people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
> > windows.
>
> If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
> one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer.

it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it
was practical to use instead of dos.

early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't
until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for
classic mac os.

sometimes you have to ship *something*.

> It's a shock that
> the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.

apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality.

On 2022-02-23 07:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <6EgRJ.107157$SeK9.405@fx97.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>>> drm has been gone for nearly 15 years. it's a distant memory.
>>
>> Except in movies, TV shows and games purchased online everywhere except GOG.
>
> the tv/movie industry still requires drm.
>
> it mostly annoys the honest people, since those who want to pirate are
> going to pirate and don't care what the online services do.

It mostly annoys me because I routinely buy movies I'd like to watch
with my students but can't because the Internet connection at work is
garbage so I can't stream them. I CAN, however, download them into cache
first before playing them which is the only decent solution. A complete
lack of DRM would have been preferable though.
>>>>> as noted above, apple didn't want drm, but had no choice. they were
>>>>> forced to by the record companies as part of the itunes music store.
>>>>> once the record companies realized that rampant piracy didn't happen,
>>>>> they relaxed those requirements.
>>>>
>>>> From what I just now read, it seems that you are correct in stating
>>>> that it was the music companies themselves which insisted on it and not
>>>> Apple. I falsely recalled that some competitors offered music without
>>>> DRM but it turns out that they had it as well.
>>>
>>> your recollection is correct. amazon did offer drm-free music slightly
>>> before apple did, but that's only because apple had existing contracts
>>> in place that required drm, whereas amazon could negotiate new ones
>>> without it, because at that time, the record industry was more amenable
>>> to no drm than when they contracted with apple. once apple's contracts
>>> expired, apple was no longer bound to use drm and it went away.
>>
>> What I _do_ recall is that in addition to cancelling DRM, Apple also
>> improved the quality of the music. If I remember correctly, they started
>> out selling their music as 128kbps, DRMed and ended up with 256kbps and
>> without.
>
> you remember correctly.
>
>> I will be the first to say that 256kbps AAC encoded with
>> Apple's version of the codec is the best sound that you will get short
>> of lossless, especially if the music is sold as an "Apple Digital
>> Master." Vorbis is close though.
>
> countless objective double-blind tests show that people do no better
> than chance when comparing high quality mp3/aac and the original.

I can notice the difference in my car where there are a dozen or so
speakers. There, a FLAC is going to sound a lot better than an AAC or an
MP3. However, on all but the best stereo headset, chances are that
nobody will notice the difference with Vorbis, AAC and FLAC. However,
they might notice with an MP3 whenever there is a mix of instruments
playing simultaneously at a certain loudness. With MP3, they tend to
create artifacts that are not present in AAC or Vorbis and especially
not lossless.

>>> i am referring to itunes match, which is a different and somewhat
>>> forgotten service.
>>
>> I'll have to look into it. All of my music is encoded as Vorbis 320kbps
>> if ripped from a CD (and since converted to AAC at the same bitrate) and
>> the rest is either MP3 320kbps or 256kbps AAC purchased from iTunes so
>> there's really nothing to be concerned with. I was afraid the conversion
>> would ruin the music and it should have but it doesn't seem to have done
>> anything at all to the sound.
>
> i suspect it won't work with vorbis, so you would probably need to
> transcode to mp3 or aac, which would only be needed for matching. there
> was a plugin for vorbis in itunes but it looks like it's long dead.

Well, considering the Vorbis were at 320kbps to begin with, chances are
that they didn't lose much if any data. Therefore, a top quality Vorbis
converted to a top-quality AAC was not likely to worsen. I actually
tested a few songs before doing it on a grander scale and I could not
hear a single difference.

< snip >

>>>> By the way, I enjoy your clarifications. I actually look forward to the
>>>> posts as a potential owner of a MacBook as my next portable.
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> buy whatever best fits your needs. my only concern is that people make
>>> an informed decision that's based on facts, not myths.
>>
>> Well, if people take the time to consider what you're saying, it
>> definitely comes from a good place. The delivery is not as smooth as
>> most of the people here would want but I guess I'm not as sensitive as
>> most.
>
> i tend to be blunt.

Same here, but I know it causes people to lose interest in talking to
me. I don't mind it because I don't want to be friends with
hypersensitive people anyway.

< snip >

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-23 07:58, nospam wrote:
> In article <hMgRJ.24049$jxu4.3920@fx02.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@r04.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I would have loved to try it out at the time but I guess that's not
>> going to happen now. I imagine that most of the Newtons out in the wild
>> have since bitten the dust.
>
> there are some on ebay, and for more than i thought they'd be.
>
> there is also a rather dumb date bug:
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/06/impending-newton-y2k10-apocalyp
> se-narrowly-averted/>
> The problem for the Newton, however, is that the date was encoded
> using only 30 bits instead of a full 32 bits, meaning that disaster
> would strike when the clock struck 6:48:31pm on January 5, 2010.
> Naturally, Newton aficionados were ruing the day they might be forced
> to buy a portable device produced within the last decade.
> ...
> However, indomitable Newton hacker Eckhart K?ppen developed a
> patch for the Newton OS which changes the time base used to calculate
> the real time to make sure the resulting value always falls in a safe
> range. The patch currently works on the US version of the MessagePad
> 2100 running Newton OS 2.1.
>
> on the other hand, macs don't have that issue.

I would have been surprised if they did. I don't recall how well Macs
averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on
my side or that of my buddies was very minimal.

>>>>> the mac was a better all around system, with more variety and better
>>>>> apps. companies could rely on a dealer network for support, something
>>>>> that atari and amiga did not have.
>>>>>
>>>>> companies could justify buying a mac and certainly a windows pc. not so
>>>>> much amiga or atari.
>>>>
>>>> As a result of the _eventual_ software library, I am tempted to agree
>>>> with you. However, if we consider 1985 specifically, the libraries of
>>>> all of the machines involved except for the PC were small and a person
>>>> would have no choice but to consider the machine's specifications and
>>>> price. In that respect, the Mac available to people in 1985 was simply a
>>>> terrible sell not only because it was way too expensive but couldn't
>>>> even produce colour.
>>>
>>> true, but as i said in another post, that didn't matter.
>>>
>>> the mac launched the desktop publishing industry, which at the time,
>>> was b/w (outside of high end stuff). the apple laserwriter with adobe
>>> postscript, along with a mac, was a game changer.
>>
>> Ah, yes. I nearly forgot about that! Apple was the first to release a
>> laser printer and THAT was definitely a game changer. I believe that
>> Atari eventually made one but it didn't have the same kind of impact
>> mostly because it didn't have the publishing software to seriously
>> challenge what was already established on the Mac side.
>
> yep.
>
> another feature of the original mac were two high speed serial ports
> capable of up to 1 mbit/sec, which also supported inexpensive appletalk
> networking. nothing else at the time could do that. appletalk networks
> were very common, especially with phonenet, which used ordinary phone
> cord.

That might haven been a reason why people chose them rather than the
competition for workstations. If you don't know _about_ networking,
you're not likely to care but once you see how easy it is to transfer
data from one place to another (rather than disks), you're probably
going to be willing to pay top dollar to have it... no matter how slow
it might seem to be.

>> I actually had that laser printer and a crapload of toner for it. Around
>> 2001, my girlfriend's dad if I could help his neighbour with his
>> computer issues. I did so and he told me a lot about how he used to use
>> Macs and had a collection. He showed me his Mac SE in particular which
>> definitely caught my eye. In exchance for the work I did, he offered to
>> give me the computer but only if I accepted to take the incredibly heavy
>> laser printer and toner with it. I did so if only to play with that Mac
>> at home.
>
> the original laserwriter weighed nearly 80 lbs and supported both
> appletalk and serial with postscript and also diablo emulation. later
> ones were nowhere near as heavy.

This one was an absolute beast. I never got to use it since I really
only wanted the computer itself but I recall struggling to bring that
thing back home from down the street. I wasn't working out at the time. :)

>>> people saw the mac's potential, especially microsoft, who copied it for
>>> windows.
>>
>> If Windows 1.0 was a copy of the Mac then it was clearly a very clumsy
>> one. I would say that Atari's TOS was a lot closer.
>
> it was a work in progress. it wasn't until win 3.x or win95 until it
> was practical to use instead of dos.
>
> early versions of mac os x were also a work in progress. it wasn't
> until about 10.2 or 10.3 when mac os x was a viable replacement for
> classic mac os.
>
> sometimes you have to ship *something*.

10.x and 10.1x were at least pretty. Admittedly though, Mac OS 9.2.2
seemed to be a lot more useful. I don't recall MacOS X being fast until
10.15.

>> It's a shock that
>> the company didn't get sued for releasing such an operating system.
>
> apple sued microsoft, but it was dismissed on a technicality.

I thought Apple had won but its victory limited to releases of Windows 1.x.

--
rabidR04CH
MSI GT72 2QD on Linux Mint 20.3
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

"Peter" <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote

| If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
then
| they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
| | Why are they hiding?
| It's almost always to do bad things.
|

Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
own dictatorial government. Or it might be me just using
a different computer in a different location. Or they might
be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
likes of Apple and Microsoft. Or maybe they're Ukrainian
resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.

There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

He says that if you have something to hide you probably
shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
of his promiscuous lifestyle.

| Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
them.

I think the question here is about authority. If I want
a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
they can provide that service. When they start imposing
it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."

In article <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7.8787@fx43.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
wrote:

> I don't recall how well Macs
> averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on
> my side or that of my buddies was very minimal.

classic mac os, which is what existed then, was ok until 2040. mac os
x, released a year later and being based on unix, had the well known
2038 limit, which was resolved long ago with mac os x 10.6 and 64 bit
time offsets. the current version of macos is good thru 2554.

Am 23.02.22 um 06:48 schrieb Jacob Jones:
>> The reality is that the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, so the
>> need to type in a location is "so incredibly timeconsuming" that
>> lazy-asses have to let their mobile device do it for them automatically
>
> Only fools do what the device can do for itself.

You are paying a very high price for this.

>> ... and then often whine about their privacy being invaded. :-\
>
> Only fools do that too.

You are naive and stupid a Troll.

Adieu

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:33:18 +0000, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Andy
Burnelli wrote:

>This is an adult question, not of whether M$ "will" do it; but of whether
>Microsoft even "can" permanently lock up your investment in PC hardware
>(now that they're forcing a login in order to access your operating system).
>
>Can they?

I don't have a forced Microsoft Account log-in on my machine. It's not a
thing. They are forcing an MSA on install. You can still take your
machine completely local afterward.

This is unlikely to change soon. It would break too much. They are
pushing an MSA hard though, and may be preparing to take such steps
long-term.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 2022-02-23 9:04 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "Peter" <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote
>
> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
> then
> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
> |
> | Why are they hiding?
> | It's almost always to do bad things.
> |
>
> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
> own dictatorial government. Or it might be me just using
> a different computer in a different location. Or they might
> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
> likes of Apple and Microsoft. Or maybe they're Ukrainian
> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>
> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>
> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
> of his promiscuous lifestyle.

I like the way you think and agree. Users of an operating should have
the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP itself
cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.
> | Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
> them.
>
> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."

It's called voting for leftist political parties.

--
rabidR04CH
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-23 9:27 a.m., nospam wrote:
> In article <C6rRJ.48974$Y1A7.8787@fx43.iad>, rabidR04CH <rabid@ro4.ch>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't recall how well Macs
>> averted the Y2K "disaster" though. At the time, the interest in Macs on
>> my side or that of my buddies was very minimal.
>
> classic mac os, which is what existed then, was ok until 2040. mac os
> x, released a year later and being based on unix, had the well known
> 2038 limit, which was resolved long ago with mac os x 10.6 and 64 bit
> time offsets. the current version of macos is good thru 2554.

Let's just hope that nobody is still using Big Sur in 2554.

--
rabidR04CH
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>| If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
> then
>| they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
>|
>| Why are they hiding?
>| It's almost always to do bad things.
>|
>
> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
> own dictatorial government.

Apple is preventing these criminals from harming the government by disabling
their accounts so it can't happen that they will try to harm the government.

> Or it might be me just using
> a different computer in a different location.

Don't do that. It's what criminals do.

> Or they might
> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
> likes of Apple and Microsoft.

Which is why Apple and Microsoft SHOULD disable their devices.
What criminal actions are they hiding?

> Or maybe they're Ukrainian
> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.

Apple does disable devices where Apple suspects criminal activity.
Don't act like a criminal and Apple won't disable your devices.

>
> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>
> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
> of his promiscuous lifestyle.

Why can't these people fully identify themselves to Apple?
Maybe face id?

Once Apple is satisfied they are not criminals Apple can then unlock their
device if they bring it into an Apple store to show their government ID.

>| Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
> them.
>
> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."

Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.

If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.

You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling them.

rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> wrote:

> Users of an operating should have
> the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
> a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP itself
> cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.

Apple disabled their device because Apple suspected criminal activity.

If they walk into any convenient Apple store and prove they aren't using
their now disabled Apple devices for criminal activity, and if they show
their government issued identification to Apple employees to check on them,
then Apple should remove the disabling lock on their Apple device.

It's no different than when you park your car illegally and the government
puts a boot on the wheels so that you can't use it until you pay the fine.

You should be thanking Apple for preventing suspected criminal actions by
disabling the device so that it can no longer be used without proving your
government identification in person at the nearest Apple store.

On 2022-02-23 11:59 a.m., Peter wrote:
> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
>> then
>> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
>> |
>> | Why are they hiding?
>> | It's almost always to do bad things.
>> |
>>
>> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
>> own dictatorial government.
>
> Apple is preventing these criminals from harming the government by disabling
> their accounts so it can't happen that they will try to harm the government.
>
>> Or it might be me just using
>> a different computer in a different location.
>
> Don't do that. It's what criminals do.
>
>> Or they might
>> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
>> likes of Apple and Microsoft.
>
> Which is why Apple and Microsoft SHOULD disable their devices.
> What criminal actions are they hiding?
>
>> Or maybe they're Ukrainian
>> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
>> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
>> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>
> Apple does disable devices where Apple suspects criminal activity.
> Don't act like a criminal and Apple won't disable your devices.
>
>>
>> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>>
>> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
>> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
>> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
>> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
>> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
>> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
>> of his promiscuous lifestyle.
>
> Why can't these people fully identify themselves to Apple?
> Maybe face id?
>
> Once Apple is satisfied they are not criminals Apple can then unlock their
> device if they bring it into an Apple store to show their government ID.
>
>> | Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
>> them.
>>
>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>
> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
>
> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
>
> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling them.

I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.

--
rabidR04CH
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> wrote:

> On 2022-02-23 11:59 a.m., Peter wrote:
>> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
>>> then
>>> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
>>> |
>>> | Why are they hiding?
>>> | It's almost always to do bad things.
>>> |
>>>
>>> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
>>> own dictatorial government.
>>
>> Apple is preventing these criminals from harming the government by disabling
>> their accounts so it can't happen that they will try to harm the government.
>>
>>> Or it might be me just using
>>> a different computer in a different location.
>>
>> Don't do that. It's what criminals do.
>>
>>> Or they might
>>> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
>>> likes of Apple and Microsoft.
>>
>> Which is why Apple and Microsoft SHOULD disable their devices.
>> What criminal actions are they hiding?
>>
>>> Or maybe they're Ukrainian
>>> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
>>> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
>>> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>>
>> Apple does disable devices where Apple suspects criminal activity.
>> Don't act like a criminal and Apple won't disable your devices.
>>
>>>
>>> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>>>
>>> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
>>> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
>>> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
>>> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
>>> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
>>> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
>>> of his promiscuous lifestyle.
>>
>> Why can't these people fully identify themselves to Apple?
>> Maybe face id?
>>
>> Once Apple is satisfied they are not criminals Apple can then unlock their
>> device if they bring it into an Apple store to show their government ID.
>>
>>> | Microsoft & Apple would be right to disable their operating systems on
>>> them.
>>>
>>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>>
>> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
>>
>> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
>> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
>>
>> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
>> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling them.
>
> I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.

It's not sarcastic. It's real. It happens all the time at the Apple Stores.

Apple remotely disabled their device because Apple suspected criminal
activity at home.

All they have to do to get their device undisabled is they bring that Apple
device into any convenient local Apple store and prove to Apple they aren't
using that disabled Apple device for criminal activity.

Apple employees will undisable their device if they show they are the
rightful owners, with receipts, and if they provide Apple their government
issued identification to Apple employees to confirm their identity to Apple.

Then Apple WILL remove the disabling lock on their Apple device.
It may sound like sarcasm to you but that is real Apple policy. Look it up.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:45:35 +1100, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Am 23.02.22 um 06:48 schrieb Jacob Jones:
>>> The reality is that the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, so
>>> the
>>> need to type in a location is "so incredibly timeconsuming" that
>>> lazy-asses have to let their mobile device do it for them automatically
>>
>> Only fools do what the device can do for itself.

> You are paying a very high price for this.

No, not paying any price at all for that. I couldn't care
less if a weather app knows where I am currently.

And I don't care that google knows where I am currently
either because I choose to use google maps because it
is much better than apple maps, particularly with the
street view. Apple maps is much better with the new
residential subdivisions in my town tho, well over a
year ahead of google maps for some reason.

>>> ... and then often whine about their privacy being invaded. :-\

>> Only fools do that too.

> You are naive and stupid a Troll.

> Adieu

Fat lot of good that will do you, trollchild.

Am 23.02.22 um 09:24 schrieb rabidR04CH:
> On 2022-02-23 9:04 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>
> It's called voting for leftist political parties.

You are simply a braindead Troll and Trumpist.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Peter <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote
> rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> wrote

>> Users of an operating should have
>> the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
>> a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP itself
>> cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.
>
> Apple disabled their device because Apple suspected criminal activity.
>
> If they walk into any convenient Apple store and prove they aren't using
> their now disabled Apple devices for criminal activity, and if they show
> their government issued identification to Apple employees to check on
> them, then Apple should remove the disabling lock on their Apple device.

> It's no different than when you park your car illegally and the
> government puts a boot on the wheels so that you can't useit until you
> pay the fine.

Very different, Apple isnt the govt and even with an illegally parked
car, you only have to pay the fine, not prove who you are.

> You should be thanking Apple for preventing suspected criminal actions by
> disabling the device so that it can no longer be used without proving
> your government identification in person at the nearest Apple store.

Mine is 300 miles away and we don't have any govt ID,

On 2022-02-23 1:25 p.m., Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 23.02.22 um 09:24 schrieb rabidR04CH:
>> On 2022-02-23 9:04 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
>>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>>
>> It's called voting for leftist political parties.
>
> You are simply a braindead Troll and Trumpist.

And _your_ posts are worthless to me. You are hereby filtered.

--
rabidR04CH
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than
men.'" - Acts 5:29
For fans of message boards, I invite you:
https://retalk.com/invite/rabidR04CH

On 2022-02-23 08:24:42 +0000, rabidR04CH said:
> On 2022-02-23 9:04 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
>> "Peter" <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> | If people are changing their IP address to hide from Microsoft or Apple
>> then
>> | they /deserve/ to have their computers shut down by Microsoft and Apple.
>> |
>> | Why are they hiding?
>> | It's almost always to do bad things.
>> |
>>
>> Where do you get that? They could be hiding from their
>> own dictatorial government. Or it might be me just using
>> a different computer in a different location. Or they might
>> be using a VPN for better privacy protection from the
>> likes of Apple and Microsoft. Or maybe they're Ukrainian
>> resistance fighters. Not everyone lives in the USA, in
>> their parents' basement... Simply put, it's none of their
>> damn business who you are or where you're logging in from.
>>
>> There's a famous video from Eric Schmidt using your logic:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew
>>
>> He says that if you have something to hide you probably
>> shouldn't be doing it. Schmidt not only leaves out much
>> of the world living under oppression, as well as abused
>> women and anyone planning a surprise party or simply wanting
>> privacy. He also leaves out himself. I read that he got a NYC
>> condo with no doorman so that reporters wouldn't be informed
>> of his promiscuous lifestyle.
>
> I like the way you think and agree. Users of an operating should have
> the right to use it from wherever, whenever and feel free to connect to
> a VPN which, at the very least, encrypts the data so that the ISP
> itself cannot monitor them to the advantage of an oppressive government.

It's nonsense. If it's an "oppressive governments" which is restricting
which websites their population can access, then that will purposely
include using VPN services as well. :-\

rabidR04CH <rabid@R04.CH> said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10542261/British-hostage-seen-handcuffed-Amsterdam-Apple-store-captor-demanded-200million-ransom.html

That is what happens when you don't identify yourself to Apple at all times!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/22/hostage-apple-store-amsterdam/

Frickin frackin sprickle finking.

In article <sv5rhc$a0v$1@dont-email.me>, Peter
<occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

> >>>
> >>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
> >>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
> >>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
> >>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
> >>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
> >>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
> >>
> >> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
> >>
> >> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
> >> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
> >>
> >> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
> >> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling
> >> them.
> >
> > I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.
>
> It's not sarcastic. It's real. It happens all the time at the Apple Stores.

it's not real and it doesn't 'happen all the time'.

> Apple remotely disabled their device because Apple suspected criminal
> activity at home.

no they didn't. apple has no way to do that, even if they were aware of
criminal activity, which they aren't.

plenty of iphones and macs are used for criminal activity, as are
android phones, windows and even linux.

the only way an iphone or ipad can be disabled is after 10 incorrect
passcode guesses or if the legitimate owner puts it into lost mode.
android is similar.

a criminal who stole a phone might encounter that, but if they're
calling/texting their buddies for their next hit, using their own
phones, everything will work as expected.

Am 24.02.22 um 03:58 schrieb nospam:
> In article <sv5rhc$a0v$1@dont-email.me>, Peter
> <occassionally-confused@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
>>>>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
>>>>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
>>>>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
>>>>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
>>>>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
>>>>
>>>> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
>>>>
>>>> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve to
>>>> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
>>>>
>>>> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
>>>> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.
>>
>> It's not sarcastic. It's real. It happens all the time at the Apple Stores.
>
> it's not real and it doesn't 'happen all the time'.

Let's call what this thread is: Fake news.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In article <sv781i$hdj$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> >>>>> I think the question here is about authority. If I want
> >>>>> a tech company to block me with 2FA and matching IP,
> >>>>> they can provide that service. When they start imposing
> >>>>> it as a restriction that's way out of line. There should
> >>>>> just be a box for people like you to check that says, "Yes,
> >>>>> pllease be my mother because I can't manage my own life."
> >>>>
> >>>> Apple's role is to protect us from those criminals.
> >>>>
> >>>> If they don't have government ID to show Apple, then they don't deserve
> >>>> to
> >>>> even be in the USA let alone operate a powerful Apple computing device.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have to ask why are they hiding their identity from Apple.
> >>>> Apple has the right to protect its devices from criminals by disabling
> >>>> them.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think I've ever read a more sarcastic post on Usenet.
> >>
> >> It's not sarcastic. It's real. It happens all the time at the Apple Stores.
> >
> > it's not real and it doesn't 'happen all the time'.
>
> Let's call what this thread is: Fake news.

a much better term would be trolling.

nospam wrote:

>> Let's call what this thread is: Fake news.
>
> a much better term would be trolling.

QUESTION:
*Given Apple can (and does) lock you out - will Microsoft do it too?*

I am extremely well educated, and as a result, I provided _proof_ of
everything that I claimed, and, the question is perfectly valid indeed.

The _adults_ looked at the facts I provided and all agreed what they show.

It's a fact that I tested myself and I provided proof of the results.
Hence the question is valid given Microsoft is following Apple's plan.

Nonetheless, I've stepped out of this "conversation" because once the iKooks
infest any thread, they destroy any and all intelligent conversation.

The iKooks _hate_ facts about Apple so they call these facts, trolls.
And yet, they're very real indeed.

FACTS:
a. Apple can unilaterally lock you out of your system when they feel like it
b. Apple can even unilaterally disable your system when they feel like it
c. Apple _does_ unilaterally do _both_ of those things (see proof provided).

ASSESSMENT:
A. Sans any proof the iKooks declare that Apple can't do what Apple does
B. Sans any proof the iKooks declare that anyone who says so is a troll
C. Yet all iKooks are ignorant uneducated defenders of Apple to the death

QUESTION:
*If Apple can (and does) lock you out - will Microsoft do it too?*

Your Name wrote:

> Again, any useful such service doesn't necessitate knowing where you
> are. You simply need to be able to look up the details for any location
> you want.

Anyone can spoof their location if they're on Android (no need for root).

Mock Location Settings are part of Android since, oh, about Android 10.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>
*Fake GPS location*, by Lexa (free, ad free, gsf free, google free, etc.)

As usual, spoofing is not going to work on the crippled iOS devices though.
--
Advertising from Google Play pasted verbatim to educate those who care...

Teleport your phone to any place in the world with two clicks! This app sets
up fake GPS location so every other app in your phone belives you are there!

Has Tasker support and can be started/stopped from command line (See FAQ for
details)

+++IMPORTANT+++
Be aware that after using FakeGPS you may find your location LOCKED TO THE
LAST MOCKED LOCATION EVENT AFTER UNINSTALL FakeGPS!

It's not a bug and your GPS sensor isn't broken. There are two ways to fix
this issue:
1. Install "GPS Status" from the Play, launch and get a fresh GPS fix. You
may need to repeat it several times with 30 min interval.
2. Start FakeGPS, set your real location and leave it so for several hours.
You may combine these steps. The issue will disappear in one or two days -
be patient.

For ROOTED devices you can mock locations without enabling "Allow mock
locations" option. To do so please use Root Explorer or other similar app
and move /data/app/ru.lexa.fakegps~1.apk to /system/priv-app or to
/system/app (for Android 4.3 and older). Then change apk permissions to
rw-r-r and reboot your device. If you find apk in /syste/priv-app disappears
after reboot it means that your devices has S-ON mode enabled and so
restores /system folder aftear each reboot. Please google how to switch your
device to S-OFF mode.

If you can't find ru.lexa.fakegps.apk in /data/app you may find it at
/mnt/asec/ru.lexa.fakegps/1.apk. In this case you should copy and rename it
to /system/priv-app/ru.lexa.fakegps.apk.

END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
This app is provided "as is" and we can not be held responsible for any
usage by the end users of our app. This app is free with limited
functionality and is for testing purposes only.