How quickly does your phone obtain a GPS fix with no assist?

[arlen holder]

How quickly does your phone obtain a GPS fix sans assistance?
o *Mine just took under 2 minutes* in my tests for nospam just now

As per nospam's suggested testing procedure...

The phone has been disassembled with no battery since last night:
<<https://i.postimg.cc/CMfnxjpB/gpsfix01.jpg>>

The SIM & memory cards are out & location turned off & in airplane mode:
<https://i.postimg.cc/hGBhdQLD/gpsfix02.jpg>

At about 6:45am toay, I put _just_ the battery back, leaving the cards out:
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRwq6VbK/gpsfix03.jpg>

I boot up the LG Stylo 3 Plus (where I had planned on starting a timer):
<https://i.postimg.cc/PNnnRYrN/gpsfix04.jpg>

The phone _knows_ that it's T-Mobile (where the SIM card is removed):
<https://i.postimg.cc/vHyQXw1h/gpsfix05.jpg>

It boots at what it thinks is 8:09PM indicated time (it's really about 6:45am):
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZsTdxnR/gpsfix06.jpg>

By 8:10 I quickly set Location On, GPS Only & quickly start "GPS status":
<https://i.postimg.cc/L8XF09mt/gpsfix07.jpg>

Hmmmm... at indicated time of 8:11, the phone _still_ hasn't gotten a fix:
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dz4knxJm/gpsfix08.jpg>

BINGO!...

Still at indicated time of 8:11, we get a fix of 17/23 satellites:
<https://i.postimg.cc/WbNBhNFB/gpsfix09.jpg>

At _most_, it was _two minutes_ (actually less but I forgot to start the
timer in my haste to hurry up and get nospam's testing sequence done!)

This shows that, at least when left overnight, the non-assisted GPS
takes less than 2 minutes, inside a house, with multiple floors overhead
(although I'm on a mountain so satellites can be seen from the sides).

While nospam says it takes "up to" 15 minutes from a 'cold start',
my tests, at least, showed an order of magnitude less time than that.

[nospam]

In article <q783rg$hk0$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> At _most_, it was _two minutes_ (actually less but I forgot to start the
> timer in my haste to hurry up and get nospam's testing sequence done!)
>
> This shows that, at least when left overnight, the non-assisted GPS
> takes less than 2 minutes, inside a house, with multiple floors overhead
> (although I'm on a mountain so satellites can be seen from the sides).
>
> While nospam says it takes "up to" 15 minutes from a 'cold start',
> my tests, at least, showed an order of magnitude less time than that.

your test is an example of a warm start, not a cold start.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:03:13 -0400, nospam wrote:

> your test is an example of a warm start, not a cold start.

How long should I leave a phone disassembled for a cold start to occur?

[nospam]

In article <q786ou$n54$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > your test is an example of a warm start, not a cold start.
>
> How long should I leave a phone disassembled for a cold start to occur?

no need to disassemble anything.

the easiest way is to manually delete the almanac & ephemeris so that
it must be re-downloaded.

for a dedicated gps device (such as the garmin street pilot you said
you have), there is usually a button sequence to restore it to factory
defaults. for an android phone, there are apps that claim to delete
both.

not that it matters, because even your 2 minute warm start is still
unacceptably long. nobody is going to want to wait anywhere near that
amount of time just for an app to get a fix.

assisted gps reduces that to a couple of seconds, if that long.

that's why a cheapo tablet with a gps but no cellular is not as good as
a more expensive tablet with gps *and* cellular. the former 'works',
but not particularly well.

learn something for a change:
<http://ozzmaker.com/take-long-get-gps-fix/>
Only a small portion of the Almanac is included in a GPS message. It
takes 25 messages (12.5 minutes) to get the full Almanac. The full
Almanac is needed before a GPS fix can be obtained.  This is Time To
First Fix (TTFF).
...
The above happens during a cold start, this is when the GPS module
has been off for some time and has no data in its memory. A full
Almanac download is required to get TTFF. If the GPS module has
clear line of sight to all satellites, the shortest time for TTFF is
12.5 minutes.

In a warm start scenario,  the GPS module has valid Almanac data, 
is close to its last position (100km or so) and knows the time within
about 20 seconds. This approximate information helps the receiver
estimate the range to satellites.  The TTFF for a warm start can be
as short as 30 seconds, but is usually just a couple of minutes.

A receiver that has a current almanac, ephemeris data, time and
position can have a hot start. A hot start can take from 0.5 to 20
seconds for TTFF.

[Alan Browne]

Long version:

A GPS receiver in perfect conditions needs 12.5 minutes to acquire a
full Almanac if it is truly "cold" and has no almanac data stored or
available from another source. If it misses the frame start by a little
as 1/50th of a second, then it's 15 minutes.

Most GPS integrations (which is what smartphones are) have the host
platform store Almanac data. So if the GPS receiver is in a true cold
state, then the platform can push the Almanac to the GPS receiver.

Many cell towers also provide the Almanac (if not current ephemerides)
along with location and precise time to allow for a very fast
acquisition. (Seconds).

Another resource for a smartphone could simply be to download the
current Almanac from the US Coast Guard at
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=currentAlmanac&format=yuma-txt
or
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=currentAlmanac&format=sem-txt

depending on one's preferred format. (Also with .alm / .al3 extensions)

Most GPS receivers will output one of the above to the host machine for
storage on request from the hosting processor.

One can also store ephemerides which go stale quicker, but at least for
short term warm starts allow very fast acquisition.

Short version:
You're clueless again "arlen".

>
> your test is an example of a warm start, not a cold start.

Yep.


--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-24 10:22, arlen holder wrote:
> How quickly does your phone obtain a GPS fix sans assistance?
> o *Mine just took under 2 minutes* in my tests for nospam just now

this is not dependent on a phone but rather on the GPS architecture. If
the GPS receiver has stale ephemeris, it needs to wait for the messages
to be broadcasted by the satellite(s) the receiver currently sees.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:40:03 -0400, nospam wrote:

> assisted gps reduces that to a couple of seconds, if that long.
>
> that's why a cheapo tablet with a gps but no cellular is not as good as
> a more expensive tablet with gps *and* cellular. the former 'works',
> but not particularly well.

Hi nospam,

*You're an Apple Apologist...*

IMHO, the main reason you spout the idiotic bullshit you spout
o *Is because you're making _excuses_ for Apple Marketing Mantra*

AFAIK: *Apple doesn't sell an iOS device with just GPS & not cellular*
o All you ever do, nospam, is make excuses for Apple's decisions

*You almost always spout non-real world Marketing bullshit, nospam*
o Which is proven wrong in a simple overnight test for Christs' sake!

Almost never can anything you say _ever_ be trusted, nospam
o Simply because you're wrong far more than even a coin toss

*You're wrong because all you do is make _excuses_ for Apple decisions!*

Hence, history shows your credibility is worse than that of the monkey.
o So _everything_ you say, has to be doublechecked in the real world

FACT:
I tested your "up to" statement in the _real world_ nospam.
o The fact is, in the real world, it took my phone about 2 minutes at most

LOGIC:
You can suggest idiotic deletion of data, nospam, but that's just bullshit
o In the real world you don't manually delete stuff just to get a GPS fix!

You're only suggesting deleting of data so that your Apple Mantra works
o The fact is that you back up Apple Marketing with your idiotic bullshit

The accuracy, as far as we can tell, is "about the same"
o While the time to get a fix is, in my given test, about 2 minutes at worst

There's nothing wrong with getting a device with BOTH GPS & cellular
o But there's nothing wrong with getting a device with just GPS

IMHO, the main reason you can't stand that basic & simple fact, nospam
o Is that you're an Apple Apologist who knows Apple doesn't supply that solution

Almost _never_ are your statements ever correct in the real world nospam
o Almost always your statements are a perfect parrot of Apple Marketing Mantra

*You're an Apple Apologist...*

[nospam]

In article <q79e0k$9lc$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> o The fact is, in the real world, it took my phone about 2 minutes at most

leave it off for longer.

what you did was a warm start, not a cold start.

what you also did was demonstrate how little you know.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> You're clueless again "arlen".

Hi Alan Browne,

You're a well known Apple Apologist where you apologize for Apple decisions
o The fact is that you apologize that Apple doesn't supply a GPS-only solution.

The fact is that a GPS-only solution works just fine, Alan Browne
o All your non-real-world bullshit won't change that fact Alan Browne

In the real world, my phone is on all day (roughly) and maybe even turned
on all night (mine normally is left on while charging although it can last
days without a charge anyway. as can very many phones with decent
batteries).

Even if my phone is turned off overnight, and all assisted methods turned
off and disabled, a start sans cellular took only "about 2 minutes" at most
(inside a house with multiple stories) in my test of nospam's bullshit last
night.

Those are real-world facts, Alan Browne
o That means it's not marketing bullshit, which is what you spew, Alan.

The _only_ reason nospam & you are even talking about "cold starts" (which,
IMHO, almost never happen in the real world in terms of actual use of my
own cellphone), is because Apple doesn't appear to provide a customer
friendly solution.

Since Apple doesn't provide the solution, you apologize for Apple's decision
o And yet, GPS sans cellular worked just fine in my tests last night.

What you and nospam apologize for is Apple's lack of consumer friendliness
o Apparently Apple doesn't provide just GPS sans cellular in an iPad

So you apologize for Apple's MARKETING decisions.
o You can't get an iPad from Apple that has GPS and no cellular (AFAIK).

All you're doing is making _excuses_ for _that_ Apple Marketing decision
o HINT: The accuracy of the GPS (with or w/o cellular) is "about the same"

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:35:52 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> this is not dependent on a phone but rather on the GPS architecture. If
> the GPS receiver has stale ephemeris, it needs to wait for the messages
> to be broadcasted by the satellite(s) the receiver currently sees.

Hi JF Mezei,

You're not an Apple Apologist so I can speak with you like an adult would.

The real issue here is that GPS alone actually works just fine (sans cellular)
o The main reason Apologists say it doesn't - is that Apple doesn't provide it

It's really _that_ simple.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:26:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

>> o The fact is, in the real world, it took my phone about 2 minutes at most
>
> leave it off for longer.

Hi nospam,

*You're an Apple Apologist...*

You keep proving my point for me, nospam.
o All I have to do is point to your silly arguments which are easily proven
wrong in a simple overnight test, nospam.

You say GPS doesn't work well w/o cellular only because you're making
excuses for Apple Marketing decisions.

*You almost always parrot exactly what Apple Marketing tells you, nospam!*

The only way your argument works, is if I do an unrealistic deletion of
data or an unrealistic shutdown of my phone, which is on 24/7 in my case,
and for most people, is generally on all day if turned off at night.

*The only way your argument works is to be unrealistic in use model.*

The fact is that GPS sans cellular works just fine in a typical use model
o INHO, the reason you say otherwise is because Apple doesn't provide it

[nospam]

In article <q79eot$ban$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> The real issue here is that GPS alone actually works just fine (sans cellular)
> o The main reason Apologists say it doesn't - is that Apple doesn't provide it

nobody said a gps doesn't work without cellular, but if you want to
wait longer for a gps fix than is necessary, by all means turn off the
cellular radio to disable the assistance and it will take longer.

spoof the wifi while you're at it, and you can make it longer still.

> It's really _that_ simple.

yet you still don't understand a thing.

[nospam]

In article <q79el1$b0a$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
> > You're clueless again "arlen".

...

> The _only_ reason nospam & you are even talking about "cold starts" (which,
> IMHO, almost never happen in the real world in terms of actual use of my
> own cellphone), is because Apple doesn't appear to provide a customer
> friendly solution.

assisted gps is as customer friendly as it gets, which can obtain a fix
in a couple of seconds, if that long.

what you're asking for is for apple to provide a slower gps.

that's really fucked up.

what's even more fucked up is you don't even realize you already have
the option. turn off the cellular radio and the gps won't be able to
obtain ephemeris from the cell network, at which point it will take the
2 minutes or whatever it took in your silly little test.

[Libor Striz]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> Wrote in message:

> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 13:27:24 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:> You're clueless again "arlen".
Hi Alan Browne,

> You're a well known Apple Apologist..

You have went on the emotional warpath again,
using carbon copy ranting
instead of focusing on facts of the GPS technical specifications.

Alan provided much of the technical insight.

Almanach ( a calendar of approximate positions of satellites in long term for visibility evaluation) takes at least 12 minutes to download from satellites, but its validity persists for weeks until the need to refresh it .

Ephemeris ( exact data of the particular satellite orbit in short term) expires after some hours/days, but downloading them from satellites takes several times less, typically your observed 2 minutes.

Nobody can blame me for being an Apple apologist,
as I have never owned any Apple device.

--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:55:18 -0400, nospam wrote:

> nobody said a gps doesn't work without cellular, but if you want to
> wait longer for a gps fix than is necessary, by all means turn off the
> cellular radio to disable the assistance and it will take longer.

Hi nospam,

Thank you for admitting that GPS works just fine sans cellular.
o In a typical real-world scenario, the time to fix is meaningless, IMHO

For example, while it took two minutes from bootup for my phone to get a
fix with the SIM card removed (and the wifi off and bluetooth off and in
airplane mode), most people aren't running that test.

Most people might have their location on all the time, in which case, those
two minutes happened hours before they ever opened up the map app to do
navigation.

My point to you nospam, is that in your ever-obvious apology for Apple's
decisions, you go to huge lengths of exaggeration to make claims that don't
hold up in the real world.

It's all about the real world, nospam.
o In the real world, the time to fix is meaningless in normal usage, IMHO

The real reason you make your wild non-real-world claims is because Apple
doesn't provide a mobile device with just GPS (sans cellular).

BTW, why can Android apps access NMEA data, but not iOS apps?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:23:57 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> its validity persists for weeks until the need to refresh it .

Hi Poutnik,

Thank you for reaffirming my main point, which was that in the "real
world", the cold start times that nospam keeps spouting are only what comes
out of marketing literature, since, as you noted, in the real world, under
real-world full-time usage of a cell phone, "its validity persists".

What I'm pointing out to nospam is that he always picks the worst case,
under unrealistic conditions, where my phone turned off is a "typical
case", where in _that_ typical case, the time to fix is an order of
magnitude shorter than the wild claims that nospam constantly spouts.

Bear in mind that nospam spouts these non-real-world worst-case claims to
defend Apple's decision to NOT make an iPad with GPS only (sans cellular).

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:55:17 -0400, nospam wrote:

> assisted gps is as customer friendly as it gets, which can obtain a fix
> in a couple of seconds, if that long.

Hi nospam,

Let's be clear.
o I have nothing against assisted GPS

What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".
o I also rebel when they claim hugely inflated cold-start times.

The _real_ reason for all your claims, nospam, is obvious, IMHO
o Apple doesn't make an iPad with just GPS (and no cellular)

All your idiotic claims, nospam, seem to stem from Apple apologies.

Just as when you claimed that 5G is no big deal (when it's a HUGE deal),
whenever you say stuff that makes absolutely no logical sense, it's almost
always because Apple doesn't have it.

For example, your stance on those idiotic AirPods versus wired headphones.
o Your stance is almost always, if not always, an apology for Apple.

> what you're asking for is for apple to provide a slower gps.
> that's really fucked up.

I'm asking you to stop bullshitting us, nospam.
o Almost all your cites & claims turn out to be false

Your credibility is shit nospam.
o All you do is apologize for what Apple doesn't deliver

There's no reason Apple couldn't have made a GPS-only (non cellular) iPad.

> what's even more fucked up is you don't even realize you already have
> the option. turn off the cellular radio and the gps won't be able to
> obtain ephemeris from the cell network, at which point it will take the
> 2 minutes or whatever it took in your silly little test.

My "silly little test" nospam, was to prove that you bullshit all the time.

I think you're not used to dealing with people of even average
intelligence, nospam, since I don't claim to be a genius, and yet, every
time I test your claims, I find out that they're almost always complete
bullshit.

Like your claims that 5G isn't important, when it's one of the biggest
deals in the history of the Internet for Christs' sake, nospam.

The reason you say 5G isn't important, IMHO, is simply that Apple is
woefully far behind and is likely to never be able to catch up.

Same with your wild claims on how much better those silly looking AirPods
are, compared to basic wired headphones.

Every time you make idiotic claims, nospam, when I look back,
the claims almost always stem from a flaw in the Apple Marketing Playbook.

[Libor Striz]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> Wrote in message:

> What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".

A-GPS in narrow meaning is not more accurate, unless temporary during warming GPS in first few minutes.

A-GPS in wider meaning as the assisted location service can be, as it is not limited to GPS as the only source of location estimation.

Aside of GSM, WiFi a BT beacons based location, there is reportedly involved also usage of the phone hardware sensors for motion estimation.

[Libor Striz]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> Wrote in message:

> Bear in mind that nospam spouts these non-real-world worst-case claims todefend Apple's decision to NOT make an iPad with GPS only (sans cellular).

Well, I have my own history with Nospam.
While he brings occasionally valid points,
his general attitude is rather unlucky.

About real case, in long term mountain treks, in underdeveloped countries or rural areas, the cell signal can be absent or unusable, so semi-cold GPS starts, downloading ephemeris, are frequent.
Note that each satellite transmits just his own ephemeris, so the downloads may occur more often than expected by the expiration time.

In my understanding, Apple and Microsoft have one common thing:
"They know better than their customers, what they really need and want.".

[nospam]

In article <q79rn8$67b$3...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".

nobody said it's more accurate.

you're rebelling against what was never said, as is typical for you.

what *was* said is that assisted gps is faster to get a fix, and it is.

> Just as when you claimed that 5G is no big deal (when it's a HUGE deal),

again, that's not what was said.

*eventually* 5g will be a big deal, except that won't happen overnight.
it's going to be several *years*.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-wireless-service-is-coming-but-deloi
tte-forecasts-slow-rollout-2018-12>
...But even by 2025, a small majority of Americans ‹ and even larger
percentages of people in other countries ‹ will still be connecting
their phones using older technologies.
...
Still, it will take years for 5G to take off, the Deloitte
researchers said. Even by 2025, only 49% of American mobile
subscribers will be using 5G, they forecast. In Japan, the fraction
of subscribers on 5G will be 45% that year. In Europe, it will be
31%. And in many parts of the developing world, the portion of
subscribers on 5G will be in the single digits percentage-wise. All
told around the globe, just 14% mobile connections ‹ excluding
those used by internet of things devices ‹ will be via 5G in 2025,
Deloitte forecast.

"5G will likely still be a relatively niche technology even in 2025,"
they said. They continued: "Ten years from now, providers will still
be rolling out 5G."

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250320190834137574%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <q79rn8$67b$3...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
>> What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".
>
> nobody said it's more accurate.
>
> you're rebelling against what was never said, as is typical for you.
>
> what *was* said is that assisted gps is faster to get a fix, and it is.

Yes. If the phone has been off and has been moved since the last time it had
a GPS fix, it may take up to 15 mins (IIRC) for it to receive the almanac
and/or ephemeris that allow it to start getting GPS fixes. With A-GPS and a
mobile internet connection, you can short-circuit that delay and get the
almanac immediately, from which a GPS fix follows straight afterwards.

>> Just as when you claimed that 5G is no big deal (when it's a HUGE deal),
>
> again, that's not what was said.
>
> *eventually* 5g will be a big deal, except that won't happen overnight.
> it's going to be several *years*.

5G is a big deal in the same way that "fibre" is. It gives a faster internet
connection, but if 4G is fast enough for what you are doing, you may not
notice any benefit. What *will* make a much bigger impact is upgrading from
patchy 2G to 3, 4 or 5G. That is what mobile companies should be devoting
their initial energies in: getting everyone up to a minimum standard beyond
which simple browsing and email will not see any further benefit. Then and
only then, should they roll out 4G and 5G to improve things even more for
those who will need it (large downloads or very intensive web usage).

Sadly there are too many places, even in built-up areas (small villages,
towns, cities - as opposed to moorland with several miles between farms)
where mobile phone and internet coverage is not possible.

You'd think that busy roads (Trunk A roads, motorways) and railway lines
should be given seamless mobile coverage to at least 3G standard, because
there is bound to be a lot of usage on those routes.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250320190834137574%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> "5G will likely still be a relatively niche technology even in 2025,"
> they said. They continued: "Ten years from now, providers will still
> be rolling out 5G."

I predict that in 10 years, there will *still* be places which can't get
reliable mobile phone coverage or at least 3G internet, even though big
cities have got 5G, 6G or 7G - unless governments make providing a universal
minimum level of service a condition of operating a mobile phone licence.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:49:35 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> Well, I have my own history with Nospam.

Hi Poutnik,

This post is from one adult to another adult so it contains details.

The apologists like nospam suffer from two ignominious faults:
o They constantly make up bullshit to excuse Apple's behavior, and, worse
o They constantly send innocent people on hopeless wild goose chases

The pointless wild-goose chases is what irked me most about Apologists.

They, seemingly maliciously, constantly sent people on unproductive wild
goose chases when asked even the simplest of questions on how to do things
in Mac & iOS that turn out to be impossible but that are obvious on all
other platforms.

Why are they so purposefully cruel?
o At first I thought they were simply ignorant of what iOS could do
o I have realized they sent people on futile wild-goose chases _on purpose_

These malicious wild-goose chases can only be purposefully malicious on
their part.

It was horrible what they do to innocent clueless people who ask questions.
o Ever since then, I decided to expose them for exactly what they are.

In addition, a lessor offense the apologists all own is the simple fact
o Their belief system is completely imaginary.

I can easily understand _why_ their belief system is purely imaginary
o Marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems
o And Apple Marketing is one of the finest on this planet at that endeavor

For example, we've easily proven that no mobile device is private, where I
can list facts where iOS isn't at all private and where Android is, and
vice versa, and I can just as easily list facts where both are private and
both are not private.

Any adult who is logical and sentient can do that
o But not the Apologists

They actually _believe_ that their imaginary belief system, which is handed
to them by Apple, is, in actuality, real.

This is why it takes only about ten seconds to DESTROY anything nospam says
o Their imaginary belief system doesn't hold up well to actual facts

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with the Apologists owning a personal belief system
which is entirely imaginary, as that is _why_ they own Apple products in
the first place; what I'm against are the constant bullshit arguments they
propose (e.g., remember when Snit "proved" that iOS could do something as
simple as graph wifi all visible wifi access points over time?)
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> (Snit video)

The apologists (and even Frank Slootweg) ate that idiocy up for weeks!
o And yet, not a single one of them ever even looked at the Y axis!

In short, I don't mind their imaginary belief system as long as they keep
it to themselves, but what I mind greatly is that they constantly send poor
unsuspecting users on pointless wild goose chases out of sheer malicious
intent.
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>

> While he brings occasionally valid points,
> his general attitude is rather unlucky.

Hi Poutnik,
I've studied all the apologists and can even list the most egregious ones.

What's important are their traits, which are common to all of them:
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>

Fundamentally, they bullshit like there is no tomorrow:
o Since their entire belief system is imaginary, facts destroy their beliefs
o Hence, they can't stand actual _facts_ about the Apple product line!
o So they incessantly bullshit, creating imaginary functionality where none exists.

o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple products?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ>

Again, I wish to be clear; I don't mind at all that they own imaginary
belief systems; what I mind is that they argue incessantly with people who
don't own their imaginary belief system, where they just make everything
up.

They waste our time with their constant childish bullshit
o I think it's because facts literally _threaten_ their belief system

> About real case, in long term mountain treks, in underdeveloped countries
> or rural areas, the cell signal can be absent or unusable, so semi-cold GPS
> starts, downloading ephemeris, are frequent.
> Note that each satellite transmits just his own ephemeris, so the downloads
> may occur more often than expected by the expiration time.

Hi Poutnik,
I never once said that A-GPS isn't faster at attaining a fix where my
_only_ purpose was to show that nospam's comments were complete and utter
bullshit.

Sure, Apple Marketing constantly says "up to", like their AirPod batteries,
which apparently are no longer functional in just 2 years, could last "up
to" umpteen hours.

Apple also claims "up to" 72% performance increase, when _nobody_ on the
planet has shown anything like that, and not even two-digit percentages for
Christs' sake.

Most of this "up to" stuff is generally complete and total special-case bullshit.

That was my point to nospam, which is that his "up to" bullshit was only
because he knows that Apple doesn't make an iPad with just GPS (and not
cellular), so he makes all these unrealistic "up to" claims.

The fact is that an iPad with "just GPS" would work just fine (even sans cellular).

> In my understanding, Apple and Microsoft have one common thing:
> "They know better than their customers, what they really need and want.".

I think _all_ marketing is in the business of creating imaginary belief systems.

Since you have a chemistry degree (and since I have plenty of college-level
chem classes), I'll use an example out of basic organic chemistry.

For example, Exxon promotes "high-test fuel", which is no better than
regular octane fuel for most cars (where paying more for high-test is what
a lot of people do, and where they waste their money on their imaginary
belief system that high-octane rated fuel is somehow (magically?) better).

As another example out of organic chemistry, polyetheramines are sort of a
soap for gasoline, where "Techron" sells an imaginary belief system to
Chevron users in the United States. The "Techron" brand is actually
completely meaningless, since it's just a trademark, but the moment Chevron
puts that name on a gasoline product, people pay MORE for what is simply
polyetheramines which EVERYONE puts in their gasoline already.

My point is that _all_ marketing organizations create imaginary belief
systems in fools, which is fine by me becuase I can't fix those fools.

But when those fools do two things on this newsgroup, then I resort to
facts to combat their malicious posts.
1. If they send people on purposefully malicious wild-goose chases
2. If they spew purposefully deceitful unhelpful product bullshit

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:38:34 -0000, NY wrote:

> I predict that in 10 years, there will *still* be places which can't get
> reliable mobile phone coverage or at least 3G internet, even though big
> cities have got 5G, 6G or 7G - unless governments make providing a universal
> minimum level of service a condition of operating a mobile phone licence.

Hi NY,

This 5G stuff is an offshoot of the main topic, where I agree with you that
5G will be a big deal and that patchiness will likely persist.

Even today, since I live on the top of a mountain, I have such poor
cellular signal that T-Mobile gives me, for free, _both_ a femtocell that
attaches to my home router, and a cellular repeater that sits in an
upstairs bedroom window.
<https://u.cubeupload.com/RLxLv5.jpg>

In effect, inside the house I have _two_ towers, so to speak.
https://u.cubeupload.com/sSOph0.jpg

Given both "towers", the cellphone works just fine inside the house; but
the moment I get to the mailbox, the signal is gone (luckily I have over a
dozen wifi antennas of this size which broadcast my wifi signal for miles).
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_wifi.jpg>

o Rod Speed: How is your neighbor's WiFi from your house going?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/FcthxOalXr0/Pr7TdtQHCgAJ>

BTW, I debug wifi all the time, which is why the lack of debugging
functionality on iOS is something readily apparent to me.
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ICNjQJuIopM/jTBUrutyBAAJ>

o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/rX-L9xbYAQAJ>

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:34:13 -0400, nospam wrote:

> what *was* said is that assisted gps is faster to get a fix, and it is.

And I never once said that it wasn't faster.
o For example, it would be about two minutes faster in my test

The only reason I checked your "up to" bullshit, nospam
o Is that almost every time you state anything so clearly off base
o It almost always (if not always) turns out to be to justify Apple's decisions

The fact is that Apple Marketing uses a PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION strategy
o Where they don't offer an iPad sans cellular with GPS

If they did, people would realize that it would work just fine
o Just as my phone did in my overnight tests

As for 5G, it's a HUGE DEAL that Apple is spending huge amounts of money on
right now, since they're _woefully_ behind, and are in danger of never
catching up, simply because Intel can't even catch up to Qualcomm, who
isn't sitting still waiting for Apple's new complex to be built next door
to them in Southern California.

IMHO, the main reason you spew your "apple isn't worried" 5G bullshit
o Is that Apple is woefully behind, so far, that they may never catch up

o Is Apple woefully behind in 5G modem technology such that they're desperate to gain control over 5G modem design?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BFTipc0f47s>

In short, every time you spew your bullshit, nospam, when I look deeper as
to why, it's almost always (if not always) simply to apologize for Apple's
deficiencies (e.g., their "courageous" decision to remove functionality in
iPhones which is still on over 99% of all Android devices simply because
it's functionality that the consumer wants).

o Your AirPods Will Die Soon
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc>

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:37:29 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> A-GPS in narrow meaning is not more accurate, unless temporary during warming GPS in first few minutes.
> A-GPS in wider meaning as the assisted location service can be, as it is not limited to GPS as the only source of location estimation.
> Aside of GSM, WiFi a BT beacons based location, there is reportedly involved also usage of the phone hardware sensors for motion estimation.

Hi Poutnik,

I never once said that A-GPS isn't a good thing.
o My only point was that nospam's bullshit needed fact checking.

IMHO, in reality, all of nospam's posturing is simply an apology for the
fact that Apple doesn't provide an iPad with GPS sans cellular.

IMHO, if nospam simply said the truth, we'd not have _any_ of these
discussions, since it's _obvious_ to all sentient adults that Apple made an
almost purely MARKETING decision not to equip iPads with just GPS (and not
cellular).

That's fine, as I've taken plenty of marketing classes and even worked in
technical marketing for years in high tech, where PRODUCT DIFFERIENTATION
is a key marketing tactic that fools suck up (e.g., L, XL, GXL in terms of
"good, better, best" product differentiation).

Nobody ever said Apple Marketing is stupid.
o Hence you can never disprove almost any "up to" claim

But, in the real world, the fact is patently clear:
o Apple could have built a GPS-only (sans cellular) iPad

All of nospam's bullshit is merely to apologize for Apple Marketing decisions.

[sms]

On 3/24/2019 7:22 PM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

By his ludicrous logic, no Garmin, Magellan, etc., standalone GPS was
ever any good because the initial GPS fix, when new out of the box,
could take longer than subsequent fixes. Actually, in practice it really
didn't take longer since during initial setup you put in your time zone
so it knows which GPS satellites to look for). These devices obtained
GPS fixes in seconds, with no Wi-Fi and no cellular. I guess you could
trick them by flying to another hemisphere and not changing your time
zone, and then it would take longer to get an initial fix, like I
tricked my tablet by using a Wi-Fi connection with VPN so it thought it
was in Australia, but even then it's just the initial fix that takes
longer, and the device remembers the fix even when turned off.

There are scores of Android and iOS apps that depend on a GPS fix. You
can't use these apps on devices without a GPS receiver. While the vast
majority of tablet sales are for Wi-Fi only devices, with the iPad, even
if you're not going to get a data plan, it makes sense to buy an LTE
model just to get the integrated GPS receiver.

At one company I contracted with we got a complaint that the setup of
our device required an Android tablet or phone (because the app required
the NMEA data be available) and all he had was iPhones and iPads. We
just sent that customer a $20 Android Tracphone and loaded the app on
with an APK.

[Alan Browne]

No it does not -have to-. There are various ways for the receiver to
get Almanac and/or ephemerides from the system it is being hosted on.

See my reply to nospam (which was a reply to 'arlen').

-It's also possible/likely that the GPS receiver in the phone has its
own memory being held up by the phone battery. In that case it simply
fetches that data from its own storage.

[nospam]

In article <uJOdnYi73bxHRQXB...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

<m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > In article <q79rn8$67b$3...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> > <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> >> What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".
> >
> > nobody said it's more accurate.
> >
> > you're rebelling against what was never said, as is typical for you.
> >
> > what *was* said is that assisted gps is faster to get a fix, and it is.
>
> Yes. If the phone has been off and has been moved since the last time it had
> a GPS fix, it may take up to 15 mins (IIRC) for it to receive the almanac
> and/or ephemeris that allow it to start getting GPS fixes. With A-GPS and a
> mobile internet connection, you can short-circuit that delay and get the
> almanac immediately, from which a GPS fix follows straight afterwards.

yep, which is what i said the other day, before trollboi went off on
his rant.

> >> Just as when you claimed that 5G is no big deal (when it's a HUGE deal),
> >
> > again, that's not what was said.
> >
> > *eventually* 5g will be a big deal, except that won't happen overnight.
> > it's going to be several *years*.
>
> 5G is a big deal in the same way that "fibre" is. It gives a faster internet
> connection, but if 4G is fast enough for what you are doing, you may not
> notice any benefit.

mostly true. there is more to 5g than just faster internet.

5g eventually will be a game changer, but it's going to take several
years before it's deployed enough to matter.

> What *will* make a much bigger impact is upgrading from
> patchy 2G to 3, 4 or 5G. That is what mobile companies should be devoting
> their initial energies in: getting everyone up to a minimum standard beyond
> which simple browsing and email will not see any further benefit. Then and
> only then, should they roll out 4G and 5G to improve things even more for
> those who will need it (large downloads or very intensive web usage).
>
> Sadly there are too many places, even in built-up areas (small villages,
> towns, cities - as opposed to moorland with several miles between farms)
> where mobile phone and internet coverage is not possible.

very, very few such places.

> You'd think that busy roads (Trunk A roads, motorways) and railway lines
> should be given seamless mobile coverage to at least 3G standard, because
> there is bound to be a lot of usage on those routes.

the major roads are covered, but it's not realistic to cover where
there are very few people, if any.

[nospam]

In article <q7aqks$31q$2...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > what *was* said is that assisted gps is faster to get a fix, and it is.
>
> And I never once said that it wasn't faster.
> o For example, it would be about two minutes faster in my test

which when launching an app, is an eternity.

just think if every web page took two minutes to load. nobody would
find that acceptable.

yet for some reason, you're wanting a slow gps.

[nospam]

In article <q7as49$62a$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> By his ludicrous logic, no Garmin, Magellan, etc., standalone GPS was
> ever any good because the initial GPS fix, when new out of the box,
> could take longer than subsequent fixes. Actually, in practice it really
> didn't take longer since during initial setup you put in your time zone
> so it knows which GPS satellites to look for). These devices obtained
> GPS fixes in seconds, with no Wi-Fi and no cellular.

absolutely false.

even with a time zone and rough location, an initial time to fix takes
quite a while, as much as 15 minutes for a device fresh out of the box.

if the device is moving, it may even be longer.

> I guess you could
> trick them by flying to another hemisphere and not changing your time
> zone, and then it would take longer to get an initial fix, like I
> tricked my tablet by using a Wi-Fi connection with VPN so it thought it
> was in Australia, but even then it's just the initial fix that takes
> longer, and the device remembers the fix even when turned off.

only for a short time. the next morning, it won't be instant, although
it won't be as long as the first fix.

> There are scores of Android and iOS apps that depend on a GPS fix. You
> can't use these apps on devices without a GPS receiver.

not true. only a small number of apps *require* a gps.

location can be determined via wifi, cellular and/or bluetooth, and in
most cases, that's more than adequate.

navigation apps are an example of needing a gps, but even those work to
a limited extent without it.

> While the vast
> majority of tablet sales are for Wi-Fi only devices, with the iPad, even
> if you're not going to get a data plan, it makes sense to buy an LTE
> model just to get the integrated GPS receiver.

only if the user plans to use an app that requires gps.

not everyone does. in fact, most do not.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0700, sms wrote:

> By his ludicrous logic, no Garmin, Magellan, etc., standalone GPS was
> ever any good because the initial GPS fix, when new out of the box,
> could take longer than subsequent fixes.

Hi Steve,
I agree since you're using adult logic with the facts.
o I too owned Garmins & Magellans, and they worked ok.

Interestingly, you watched me learn something very important about nospam's
motives, when you and he were talking about a month ago about 5G, where I
wondered why nospam repeatedly attempted to downplay the importance of 5G
to Apple.

When I looked up 5G, which you know I did, I found, much to my
astonishment, that Apple is woefully behind in the technology, and in very
real danger of never being able to catch up. At that moment was my "Aha"
moment, since I'm always trying to figure out why nospam says the strange
things that he says.

Almost always, if not always, nospam is merely justifying a decision that
Apple made, usually where Apple's decisions were made on purely marketing
grounds, but where nospam desperately tries to _defend_ those decisions, on
factual grounds.

IMHO, that's why it only takes ten seconds (&, in this case, overnight), to
DESTROY the logic that nospam spews.

Only one fact needs to be known to comprehend nospam's logic:
o If Apple doesn't have it, nospam says it's not important.
o If Apple won't allow it, nospam says it's not needed.
o If Apple has it (e.g., GPS + cellular only) nospam says it's required.

FACT:
o Apple MARKETING doesn't allow for a GPS-only iPad (sans cellular).

LOGIC:
o Everything nospam says is his attempt at apologizing for that fact.

> Actually, in practice it really
> didn't take longer since during initial setup you put in your time zone
> so it knows which GPS satellites to look for).

Yup. I started with the laptop yellow DeLorme brick on the dashboard, and
then the white CoPilot dot, before graduating to the StreetPilotIII on a
beanbag and then an entire series of nuvi and Magallan devices.

They asked for location information initially.

> These devices obtained
> GPS fixes in seconds, with no Wi-Fi and no cellular.

Yup. Although they didn't work well on certain windshields and in the
middle of the vehicle - they worked fine on most dashboards where we all
used them for _years_ that way.

That's the point of the iPad, which is my main point in this discussion:
o The fact Apple MARKETING doesn't allow for a GPS-enabled iPad sans
cellular doesn't mean that it wouldn't work just fine.

It's simply a product differentiation decision by Apple.
o The justification of that decision by nospam is classic Apple Apologist

> I guess you could
> trick them by flying to another hemisphere and not changing your time
> zone, and then it would take longer to get an initial fix, like I
> tricked my tablet by using a Wi-Fi connection with VPN so it thought it
> was in Australia, but even then it's just the initial fix that takes
> longer, and the device remembers the fix even when turned off.

Hehhehhehheh... I used to stick the StreetPilotIII in the window as I flew
from one destination to another, in the times before they began giving you
the flight curves in front of you...

Even with six batteries (maybe more, it had a ton of them as I recall), it
didn't last all that long, but while it lasted, it was fun to see the
400mph speeds on the device, where, for the nuvi, it saved that information
as your fastest speed - which gave you ersatz bragging rights in the
motorhead circles. :)

> There are scores of Android and iOS apps that depend on a GPS fix. You
> can't use these apps on devices without a GPS receiver. While the vast
> majority of tablet sales are for Wi-Fi only devices, with the iPad, even
> if you're not going to get a data plan, it makes sense to buy an LTE
> model just to get the integrated GPS receiver.

I have both types of iPads, where T-Mobile no longer offers the
now-grandfathered free-for-life SIM cards, so I'd be interested in a
GPS-only iPad (sans cellular); but it simply doesn't appear to exist.

My main point when discussing things with nospam is that he's apologizing
for the lack of a GPS-only iPad in almost all his posts, which is why his
logic never makes any factual sense without his marketing-speak of the
worse "up to" claims he can come up with, which aren't actuallized in the
real world.

In the real world, it took my phone less than two minutes, which, in the
scheme of things for a phone, which is on almost all the time (as are my
iPads), will happen in the background long before I even open up a
navigation app.

> At one company I contracted with we got a complaint that the setup of
> our device required an Android tablet or phone (because the app required
> the NMEA data be available) and all he had was iPhones and iPads. We
> just sent that customer a $20 Android Tracphone and loaded the app on
> with an APK.

Steve ... this NMEA stuff is intriguing.

What can you do, by way of useful functionality, with an app that reads
NMEA data, that you can't do with an app that can't read that NMEA data?

[Libor Striz]

On 3/25/19 3:14 PM, arlen holder wrote:

>> About real case, in long term mountain treks, in underdeveloped countries
>> or rural areas, the cell signal can be absent or unusable, so semi-cold GPS
>> starts, downloading ephemeris, are frequent.
>> Note that each satellite transmits just his own ephemeris, so the downloads
>> may occur more often than expected by the expiration time.
>
> Hi Poutnik,
> I never once said that A-GPS isn't faster at attaining a fix where my
> _only_ purpose was to show that nospam's comments were complete and utter
> bullshit.

I never said you did. :-)

If one uses GPS in outdoor scenarios out of cities and roads,
being forced offline and out of a-GPS support is a frequent scenario.
At least for me.

--
Libor aka The Wanderer

RFC parts violating laws by public exposing private information
cannot force me to fit them.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 08:34, nospam wrote:
> In article <q79rn8$67b$3...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
>> What I rebel against is anyone who implies A-GPS is "more accurate".

Assisted-GPS: no.
Augmented GPS: yes.

Assisted-GPS: is more quickly accurate - but not more accurate. Initial
GPS warmstart fixes are usually high in error. Assisted GPS reduces
that error more quickly than GPS alone since satellites are acquired
rapidly. This is A-GPS as you use it.

Augmented-GPS: in wide open spaces (a field) then the GPS is also
likely seeing SBAS satellites (where available) which improves the
accuracy down into the 2 - 4 metre range. This is not A-GPS in the
sense you're using it. (SBAS = [WAAS: North America, EGNOS: Europe,
MSAS: Japan, etc.]. Geostationary sats with GPS mimicking signals that
carry ionospheric correction data derived from many ground station
measurements).

In the end the error is more dependent on how the user "carries" the
phone. eg: in a pants pocket is pretty bad; in a purse on the floor of
the car is pretty bad, and so on. Atop a backpack (in a pouch for
example) it's pretty good.

Then there is GLONASS in most up to date receivers, but I'm not clear on
whether they solve GPS and GLONASS separately and then filter the
results, or if they have models to mix the PR data to come up with a
combined fix. (Mathematically offset as GPS and GLONASS do not have a
common ECEF origin). I had a Garmin receiver with both, but it did the
former, not the latter.

And of course the GPS chipsets now include not only GLONASS but Galileo
and/or Beidou along with comms.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 11:58, Libor Striz wrote:
> On 3/25/19 3:14 PM, arlen holder wrote:
>
>>> About real case, in long term mountain treks, in underdeveloped
>>> countries
>>> or rural areas, the cell signal can be absent or unusable, so
>>> semi-cold GPS
>>> starts, downloading ephemeris, are frequent.
>>> Note that each satellite transmits just his own ephemeris, so the
>>> downloads
>>> may occur more often than expected by the expiration time.
>>
>> Hi Poutnik,
>> I never once said that A-GPS isn't faster at attaining a fix where my
>> _only_ purpose was to show that nospam's comments were complete and utter
>> bullshit.
>
> I never said you did. :-)
>
> If one uses GPS in outdoor scenarios out of cities and roads,
> being forced offline and out of a-GPS support is a frequent scenario.
> At least for me.

+1

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:55:28 -0400, nospam wrote:

> yep, which is what i said the other day, before trollboi went off on
> his rant.

Notice that nospam calls facts he doesn't like, trolls.
o The fact is that Apple doesn't provide an iPad with GPS sans cellular.

IMHO, all of nospam's repeated and incessant insinuations are a _direct_
defense of _that_ single product-differentiation marketing decision.

For an adult (e.g., Steve or Poutnik), they understand this simple fact:
o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for navigation

That's my main point which nospam clearly disagrees with
o Which is why his statements are so easily destroyed by mere facts

IMHO, that is why nospam calls facts, trolls.
o It's what Apple apologists like nospam say when confronted with facts.

[nospam]

In article <q7aua0$ai1$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for navigation

only after a lengthy wait.

nobody wants to sit in the parking lot waiting for their tablet to get
a fix.

[Alan Browne]

I use an iPad with one of my drones. It's never been an issue.

I gather therefore, that Apple are storing the Almanac between fixes and
throwing it back at the GPS receiver when needed.

Indeed I have an iPad here that hasn't been turned on in months. I'll
try to check it out after lunch.

[Libor Striz]

On 3/25/19 4:03 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:37:29 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>
>> A-GPS in narrow meaning is not more accurate, unless temporary during warming GPS in first few minutes.
>> A-GPS in wider meaning as the assisted location service can be, as it is not limited to GPS as the only source of location estimation.
>> Aside of GSM, WiFi a BT beacons based location, there is reportedly involved also usage of the phone hardware sensors for motion estimation.
>
> Hi Poutnik,
>
> I never once said that A-GPS isn't a good thing.
> o My only point was that nospam's bullshit needed fact checking.

I think you pay too much attention to nospam,
wasting on him more time and mind effort resourses yourself
than he causes on his own.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:55:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

> which when launching an app, is an eternity.
>
> just think if every web page took two minutes to load. nobody would
> find that acceptable.
>
> yet for some reason, you're wanting a slow gps.

Hi nospam,

Given the real world use model, those initial two minutes would happen in
the background, given that, at least in my situation, the iPads and phones
are never turned off.

I realize why you're so insistent in implying how horrid an iPad with just
GPS and no cellular would be, but the fact remains despite the fact you
don't like the fact that...
o An iPad with just GPS (sans cellular) would work just fine for navigation

Since you're an avowed apologist, I don't expect you to agree with that
logic; but at least we need to be clear as to WHY you insist on the
particularly strange logic that you always insist on.

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _remove analog jacks_, then, by
golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless) factual
grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _disallow expansion slots_, then,
by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _disallow removable batteries_,
then, by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _secretly throttle devices_, then,
by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _disallow app functionality_ (such
as automatic phone recording or using NMEA data or graphing wifi signals),
then, by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _lack an App-Drawer_ functionality,
then, by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _disallow sideloading_
functionality, then, by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted
(usually baseless) factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _require an Advertiser ID_, then,
by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

If Apple made the MARKETING decision to _lack NewPipe functionality_, then,
by golly, you'll defend that decision on attempted (usually baseless)
factual grounds ad infinitum...

..... this list of what you defend (aka apologize) for ... goes on forever!

In short, Since Apple made the MARKETING decision to not supply an iPad
with GPS and no cellular, then, by golly, you'll defend that decision on
attempted (usually baseless) factual grounds ad infinitum...

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:24:30 +0100, Libor Striz wrote:

> I think you pay too much attention to nospam,
> wasting on him more time and mind effort resourses yourself
> than he causes on his own.

Sadly, I agree wholeheartedly with your facts, and your logic.

You can tell I _care_ about people, in that I _help_ them all the time.
o The facts show that plainly

You can also tell that it irks me that apologists are malicious in intent
o It literally hurts me to see them send people on wild-goose chases

They literally fabricate functionality they _know_ doesn't exist.
o Why they do that is what bothers me - because their intent is malicious

The facts are clear that the logic is that nospam's intent is NOT to be helpful
o The logic is that nospam's intent is merely to justify Apple's MARKETING decisions

That's why almost everything nospam says, makes no logical sense
o He spews incessant bullshit to justify what is clearly a MARKETING decision

*And yet, you're completely right in both fact & logical interpretation!*

The fact is that I spend too much time refusing nospam's Apple apologies.
o Agreeing on facts is what adults easily do.

I also agree with your logic that I spend more effort proving him wrong
o Than the little time he spends spewing his Marketing-support bullshit

Adults easily agree on facts & logic when it's so plainly shown.
o Thank you.

You're right.
o I will try to spend less energy wasted on nospam's spewing of bullshit.

In this case, the logic is apparent to any adult based on the facts:
o An iPad with GPS would work just fine

[sms]

On 3/24/2019 5:35 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2019-03-24 10:22, arlen holder wrote:
>> How quickly does your phone obtain a GPS fix sans assistance?
>> o *Mine just took under 2 minutes* in my tests for nospam just now
>
>
> this is not dependent on a phone but rather on the GPS architecture. If
> the GPS receiver has stale ephemeris, it needs to wait for the messages
> to be broadcasted by the satellite(s) the receiver currently sees.

In that case the initial fix takes longer. But the reality is that in a
product with a GPS receiver, the device knows which satellites to look
for based on its general location, which it knows through other means,
even when new.

On all the standalone GPS devices, like Garmin and Magellan, there were
two ways. The manufacturer knew the region to which the devices were to
be shipped to initially, and upon initial setup the user specified their
time zone.

In any case, if a device that is moved to a new location without being
turned on, once the initial fix has occurred, subsequent fixes are very
fast and there is no need for a cellular or Wi-Fi signal.

[sms]

On 3/25/2019 9:24 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> On 3/25/19 4:03 PM, arlen holder wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 07:37:29 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:
>>
>>> A-GPS in narrow meaning is not more accurate, unless temporary during
>>> warming GPS in first few minutes.
>>> A-GPS in wider meaning as the assisted location service can be, as it
>>> is not limited to GPS as the only source of location estimation.
>>> Aside of GSM, WiFi a BT beacons based location, there is reportedly
>>> involved also usage of the phone hardware sensors for motion estimation.
>>
>> Hi Poutnik,
>>
>> I never once said that A-GPS isn't a good thing.
>> o My only point was that nospam's bullshit needed fact checking.
>
> I think you pay too much attention to nospam,
> wasting on him more time and mind effort resourses yourself
> than he causes on his own.

+1. Just filter him out like most people do. He'll get tired of his
schtick and go away.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 13:39, sms wrote:
> On 3/24/2019 5:35 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 2019-03-24 10:22, arlen holder wrote:
>>> How quickly does your phone obtain a GPS fix sans assistance?
>>> o *Mine just took under 2 minutes* in my tests for nospam just now
>>
>>
>> this is not dependent on a phone but rather on the GPS architecture. If
>> the GPS receiver has stale ephemeris, it needs to wait for the messages
>> to be broadcasted by the satellite(s) the receiver currently sees.
>
> In that case the initial fix takes longer. But the reality is that in a
> product with a GPS receiver, the device knows which satellites to look
> for based on its general location, which it knows through other means,
> even when new.

GPS needs 3 things to acquire within a minute or so:

- Almanac (what/where/when of the GPS orbits)
- Location (within a couple hundred km)
- Time (within 30 minutes or so)

Depending on how the "new" device was shipped it will or will not have
some or all of those.

Almanacs of 30 - 60 days are adequate. So if the device has been on the
shelf over 2 months, it's not going to acquire quickly even if time and
location are good.

(My last Garmin handheld took over 12 minutes to lock the first time -
it was a GPS/GLONASS version).

> On all the standalone GPS devices, like Garmin and Magellan, there were
> two ways. The manufacturer knew the region to which the devices were to
> be shipped to initially, and upon initial setup the user specified their
> time zone.

Which is useless if it could not maintain time while on the shelf / in
transit.

"Region" is too coarse.

> In any case, if a device that is moved to a new location without being
> turned on, once the initial fix has occurred, subsequent fixes are very
> fast and there is no need for a cellular or Wi-Fi signal.

Depends on the environment. In the city aiding is of considerable
benefit due to "urban canyons" blocking sats or multipath.

[Libor Striz]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> Wrote in message:

> Sadly, I agree wholeheartedly with your facts, and your logic.You can tell I _care_ about people, in that I _help_ them all the time. [...]

Yes, I can.

> I also agree with your logic that I spend more effort proving him wrong Than the little time he spends spewing his Marketing-support bullshit.

The all case reminds me the group sci.physics.relativity
where people with knowledge and skills
quickly realized that
"Writing ignorant ideas takes much less time and effort than refuting them."
Therefore they stopped trying, at least for the notorious ignorants.

--
Poutnik ( the Wanderer )



----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-25 12:25, arlen holder wrote:

> Given the real world use model, those initial two minutes would happen in
> the background, given that, at least in my situation, the iPads and phones
> are never turned off.

This is an opaque implementation detail. For battery autonomy purposes,
you shoudln't assume that the GPS chip is contantly turned on and
processing GPS signals.

Even when phone is awake, it isn't clear that the GPS chip would be
active all the time when none of the active apps need location services.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 12:23, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2019-03-25 12:09, nospam wrote:
>> In article <q7aua0$ai1$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
>> <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for
>>> navigation
>>
>> only after a lengthy wait.
>>
>> nobody wants to sit in the parking lot waiting for their tablet to get
>> a fix.
>
> I use an iPad with one of my drones.  It's never been an issue.
>
> I gather therefore, that Apple are storing the Almanac between fixes and
> throwing it back at the GPS receiver when needed.
>
> Indeed I have an iPad here that hasn't been turned on in months.  I'll
> try to check it out after lunch.

1) Powered up iPad and took outside. Had position w/i 100 metres (error
circle) in about 30 seconds. Closed to a few metres 10 seconds later.

WiFi was on, so it might have gotten a position bump from a database.

2) Turned off WiFi and hard reset the iPad.
-powered it off
-reset it (home+power held down).

By the time I found the password for it on my iPhone and entered
that (because TouchID wouldn't work after a reset), on the Map it had
the position. Less than 90 seconds.

So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...

[nospam]

In article <TfSdnWGrL9nJowTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for
> >>> navigation
> >>
> >> only after a lengthy wait.
> >>
> >> nobody wants to sit in the parking lot waiting for their tablet to get
> >> a fix.
> >
> > I use an iPad with one of my drones.  It's never been an issue.
> >
> > I gather therefore, that Apple are storing the Almanac between fixes and
> > throwing it back at the GPS receiver when needed.
> >
> > Indeed I have an iPad here that hasn't been turned on in months.  I'll
> > try to check it out after lunch.
>
> 1) Powered up iPad and took outside. Had position w/i 100 metres (error
> circle) in about 30 seconds. Closed to a few metres 10 seconds later.
>
> WiFi was on, so it might have gotten a position bump from a database.

and cellular.

> 2) Turned off WiFi and hard reset the iPad.
> -powered it off
> -reset it (home+power held down).
>
> By the time I found the password for it on my iPhone and entered
> that (because TouchID wouldn't work after a reset), on the Map it had
> the position. Less than 90 seconds.
>
> So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...

because it has an assisted gps.

if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 16:53, nospam wrote:
> In article <TfSdnWGrL9nJowTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for
>>>>> navigation
>>>>
>>>> only after a lengthy wait.
>>>>
>>>> nobody wants to sit in the parking lot waiting for their tablet to get
>>>> a fix.
>>>
>>> I use an iPad with one of my drones.  It's never been an issue.
>>>
>>> I gather therefore, that Apple are storing the Almanac between fixes and
>>> throwing it back at the GPS receiver when needed.
>>>
>>> Indeed I have an iPad here that hasn't been turned on in months.  I'll
>>> try to check it out after lunch.
>>
>> 1) Powered up iPad and took outside. Had position w/i 100 metres (error
>> circle) in about 30 seconds. Closed to a few metres 10 seconds later.
>>
>> WiFi was on, so it might have gotten a position bump from a database.
>
> and cellular.

Nope.

>
>> 2) Turned off WiFi and hard reset the iPad.
>> -powered it off
>> -reset it (home+power held down).
>>
>> By the time I found the password for it on my iPhone and entered
>> that (because TouchID wouldn't work after a reset), on the Map it had
>> the position. Less than 90 seconds.
>>
>> So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...
>
> because it has an assisted gps.
>
> if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
> have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.

No. Not a cellular version.

[nospam]

In article <obydnf6-1IVp3QTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>>>> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for
> >>>>> navigation
> >>>>
> >>>> only after a lengthy wait.
> >>>>
> >>>> nobody wants to sit in the parking lot waiting for their tablet to get
> >>>> a fix.
> >>>
> >>> I use an iPad with one of my drones.  It's never been an issue.
> >>>
> >>> I gather therefore, that Apple are storing the Almanac between fixes and
> >>> throwing it back at the GPS receiver when needed.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed I have an iPad here that hasn't been turned on in months.  I'll
> >>> try to check it out after lunch.
> >>
> >> 1) Powered up iPad and took outside. Had position w/i 100 metres (error
> >> circle) in about 30 seconds. Closed to a few metres 10 seconds later.
> >>
> >> WiFi was on, so it might have gotten a position bump from a database.
> >
> > and cellular.
>
> Nope.

bzzt. ipads with gps have a cellular radio.

> >
> >> 2) Turned off WiFi and hard reset the iPad.
> >> -powered it off
> >> -reset it (home+power held down).
> >>
> >> By the time I found the password for it on my iPhone and entered
> >> that (because TouchID wouldn't work after a reset), on the Map it had
> >> the position. Less than 90 seconds.
> >>
> >> So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...
> >
> > because it has an assisted gps.
> >
> > if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
> > have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.
>
> No. Not a cellular version.

yes a cellular version. ipads with gps have a cellular radio.

it's an assisted gps, which is why it was quick.

[Alan Browne]

That could indeed explain it. So why are you on about waiting in a
parking lot?

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 17:04, nospam wrote:

Even w/o the SIM card? None is installed.

[nospam]

In article <zcKdnd3C7eBD3wTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

'arlen' wants a gps *without* a cellular radio:

> >>>>>>> o An iPad with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine for
> >>>>>>> navigation

if there's no cellular radio, there won't be any assistance, thus the
'waiting in a parking lot' to get a fix before being able to use it for
navigation.

[nospam]

In article <DdCdndDQBcSa1QTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
> >>> have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.
> >>
> >> No. Not a cellular version.
> >
> > yes a cellular version. ipads with gps have a cellular radio.
> >
> > it's an assisted gps, which is why it was quick.
>
> Even w/o the SIM card? None is installed.

which ipad?

recent ipads have an embedded e-sim in addition to a sim slot. not all
carriers support e-sims yet.

since a phone without a sim can call 911, it may be possible to obtain
ephemeris without a sim. at a minimum, a rough location could be
determined.

i do know that an active cellular account is *not* needed for gps
assist, but i've never tried it without any sim at all.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:

> recent ipads have an embedded e-sim in addition to a sim slot. not all
> carriers support e-sims yet.

An iPad which was not purchased with the cellular option won't have a
cellular radio or SIM card slot. It has no means to receive any "GPS
assist" from cellular towers.

One with cellular option, but without a SIM card still has limited
capabilities (such as ability to dial 911) so it could still be
listening to what towers are nearby and getting their broadcasts of
time/location even though they can't "login" to that service.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:

> In article <DdCdndDQBcSa1QTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
>>>>> have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.
>>>>
>>>> No. Not a cellular version.
>>>
>>> yes a cellular version. ipads with gps have a cellular radio.
>>>
>>> it's an assisted gps, which is why it was quick.
>>
>> Even w/o the SIM card? None is installed.
>
> which ipad?

iPad Mini 4. No e-sim.

> since a phone without a sim can call 911, it may be possible to obtain
> ephemeris without a sim. at a minimum, a rough location could be
> determined.
>
> i do know that an active cellular account is *not* needed for gps
> assist, but i've never tried it without any sim at all.

Plausible.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-25 17:40, nospam wrote:

> if there's no cellular radio, there won't be any assistance, thus the
> 'waiting in a parking lot' to get a fix before being able to use it for
> navigation.

A proper integration where the tablet stores the alamanac data (if the
GPS module itself doesn't do it) will acquire as quickly as, for
example, the TomTom in my car. No real issue really.

[nospam]

In article <DfidndQ9q6o_xQTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> > if there's no cellular radio, there won't be any assistance, thus the
> > 'waiting in a parking lot' to get a fix before being able to use it for
> > navigation.
>
> A proper integration where the tablet stores the alamanac data (if the
> GPS module itself doesn't do it) will acquire as quickly as, for
> example, the TomTom in my car. No real issue really.

it'll be longer than if there was cellular.

one major benefit is powering up the gps, getting a fix and powering it
back down, which is done automatically in many situations. that could
not happen without assist.

[Alan Browne]

Most people, esp. in cars, (your example) leave the GPS on.

If (to be repetitive) the GPS integration to the host electronics is
well done, the fix will be very quick in any case.

[sms]

On 3/25/2019 4:26 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

> Most people, esp. in cars, (your example) leave the GPS on.

It's not really necessary. Once it has an initial fix, when it's powered
back on it remembers which satellites it could see before and quickly
gets a fix. There's no "sitting around in parking lots," LOL.

If you powered it down, flew halfway around the world, then powered it
back up, it would take longer to get a fix unless you gave it a hint of
the location, like the new time zone).

I'm sure we all remember that back when Garmin and Magellan were popular
for navigation that there were huge parking lots full of cars, with the
cars just sitting there idling while the drivers were waiting for their
devices to get a GPS fix. Those were very dark days.

[nospam]

In article <q7btdm$je7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> If you powered it down, flew halfway around the world, then powered it
> back up, it would take longer to get a fix unless you gave it a hint of
> the location, like the new time zone).

which some people do.

the point is that with assisted gps, it's always fast to get a fix.

> I'm sure we all remember that back when Garmin and Magellan were popular
> for navigation that there were huge parking lots full of cars, with the
> cars just sitting there idling while the drivers were waiting for their
> devices to get a GPS fix. Those were very dark days.

quite often, when i flew across country, i would need to wait several
minutes for my garmin to get a fix, and after being off overnight, it
would take 30 seconds or so.

with a phone and assisted gps, it's *much* faster, usually instant, no
matter when or where.

[nospam]

In article <z92dnQPWy7Ui_gTB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> if there's no cellular radio, there won't be any assistance, thus the
> >>> 'waiting in a parking lot' to get a fix before being able to use it for
> >>> navigation.
> >>
> >> A proper integration where the tablet stores the alamanac data (if the
> >> GPS module itself doesn't do it) will acquire as quickly as, for
> >> example, the TomTom in my car. No real issue really.
> >
> > it'll be longer than if there was cellular.
> >
> > one major benefit is powering up the gps, getting a fix and powering it
> > back down, which is done automatically in many situations. that could
> > not happen without assist.
>
> Most people, esp. in cars, (your example) leave the GPS on.

but they don't normally do that with ipads, which are not often used
for navigation in cars anyway. phones, on the other hand, are quite
commonly used in cars.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:53:33 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> This is an opaque implementation detail. For battery autonomy purposes,
> you shoudln't assume that the GPS chip is contantly turned on and
> processing GPS signals.
>
> Even when phone is awake, it isn't clear that the GPS chip would be
> active all the time when none of the active apps need location services.

Hi JF Mezei,
I agree where the main point is that an iPad with just GPS would work just
fine (it would be no worse than the magallans and garmins we used years ago
in terms of time to get a fix).

As Steve mentioned, even then, as now, they didn't build huge parking lots
for all the people with those GPS-only devices so that they could wait to
get a fix according to what nospam says.

I have nothing against A-GPS.
o I simply state logic based on facts that a GPS-only iPad would work fine

[sms]

On 3/25/2019 7:58 PM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> I have nothing against A-GPS.
> o I simply state logic based on facts that a GPS-only iPad would work fine

True. Just as GPS-only Android tablets work just fine. They get a GPS
fix quickly. IMVAIO, the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order to
get the GPS on an iPad.

[David Taylor]

On 25/03/2019 20:47, Alan Browne wrote:
[]

> So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...

The only situation where I've found GPS failing (apart from the obvious
tunnels and screened rooms!) has been where a GPS jammer was nearby.
Likely some driver trying to "hide" his movements.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[nospam]

In article <q7dg28$d8d$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> The only situation where I've found GPS failing (apart from the obvious
> tunnels and screened rooms!) has been where a GPS jammer was nearby.
> Likely some driver trying to "hide" his movements.

how often does that happen?

[123456789]

sms wrote:

> IMVAIO, the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order
> to get the GPS on an iPad.

Only if you need GPS capability and most folks these days use a
phone for that.

The wife's iPad never leaves the house except on long trips
and then to kill the road tedium she reads (yucky) romance
novels. Spend extra bucks for that?? :-/

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:21:44 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

>> So, so much for the "sitting in the parking lot waiting...
>

> The only situation where I've found GPS failing (apart from the obvious
> tunnels and screened rooms!) has been where a GPS jammer was nearby.
> Likely some driver trying to "hide" his movements.

Hi David Taylor,
I agree with what you wrote above.

The facts are clear where we, as adults, can differ on logic.

It's my assessment, from the facts presented in this thread, that
o A WiFi/GPS iPad (sans cellular) would work just fine

It's mainly nospam who disagrees, where my assessment of his motive
o Is that nospam constantly makes excuses for Apple MARKETING decisions

What I find odd about nospam is that he's incapable of saying that it's
simply a product-differentiation decision by Apple Marketing, which all
marketing organizations do (e.g., only the high-end car gets a gold-plated
GXL emblem).

What nospam consistently attempts to do is apologize for Apple's Marketing
decisions by attempting to back them up on factual claims that most adults
find to be ludicrous (e.g., huge numbers of people sitting in parking lots
waiting for a fix).

The ludicrous claims by nospam is what irks me.
o I don't see why he can't simply stick with the facts & logical deductions

FACT & LOGIC:
o An iOS/Android tablet with just GPS (no cellular) would work just fine.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:37:26 -0700, sms wrote:

>> o I simply state logic based on facts that a GPS-only iPad would work fine
>
> True. Just as GPS-only Android tablets work just fine. They get a GPS
> fix quickly. IMVAIO, the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order to
> get the GPS on an iPad.

Hi Steve,
Based on that, may I ask you a fact-seeking question about an iPad with GPS?

I have iPads with WiFi, GPS & cellular (I use the T-Mobile freebie SIMs)
o I have an iPad with just WiFi and no GPS (and no cellular)

Since T-Mobile stopped new freebie SIMs, I have no use for tablet cellular
o But I have plenty good use for both WiFi & GPS on a tablet

My question of fact & utility:
o Does Apple even make an iPad with WiFi & GPS (but no cellular)?

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:15 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

> Only if you need GPS capability and most folks these days use a
> phone for that.
>
> The wife's iPad never leaves the house except on long trips
> and then to kill the road tedium she reads (yucky) romance
> novels. Spend extra bucks for that?? :-/

Depending on the size of your phone, and on strength of the difference in
your bifocals, a tablet can have a HUGE screen compared to that of a phone
which can make a HUGE difference on the eyes, particularly in a vehicle
where the quicker you can make out the text the better.

Having said that size matters, I find that the Google talking map
directions are pretty good nowadays, even down to the lane you need to be
in and a reasonably accurate distance (e.g., "in 800 feet use the left two
lanes to turn slightly left onto Main Street").

In summary, given the facts, my logical deduction is twofold:
o For talking directions, size doesn't matter
o For old eyes on a small phone, size does matter

As always, adults can differ on logical deductions, but we, as adults,
should not have much problem (except with apologists) agreeing on the
facts.

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:250320191155286730%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> What *will* make a much bigger impact is upgrading from
>> patchy 2G to 3, 4 or 5G. That is what mobile companies should be devoting
>> their initial energies in: getting everyone up to a minimum standard
>> beyond
>> which simple browsing and email will not see any further benefit. Then
>> and
>> only then, should they roll out 4G and 5G to improve things even more for
>> those who will need it (large downloads or very intensive web usage).
>>
>> Sadly there are too many places, even in built-up areas (small villages,
>> towns, cities - as opposed to moorland with several miles between farms)
>> where mobile phone and internet coverage is not possible.
>
> very, very few such places.
>
>> You'd think that busy roads (Trunk A roads, motorways) and railway lines
>> should be given seamless mobile coverage to at least 3G standard, because
>> there is bound to be a lot of usage on those routes.
>
> the major roads are covered, but it's not realistic to cover where
> there are very few people, if any.

I'm talking about places where there are centres of population (maybe 1000
or more people in a village, or 10,000 in a town) every few miles. Even in
those situation there are dead zones. We lived on the edge of one: it was
possible to get good mobile reception on one side of the house but nothing
on the other - and on some networks, it was necessary to walk a couple of
hundred yards up the road to get a signal.

And in a small market town (population 13,000) there were black spots in the
town centre. I remember having great problems when I came to report problems
with an Amazon Locker that was in the local supermarket because there was no
signal at the supermarket, so I had to run up the road, call the help line,
run back to try the remedy that they suggested, and then run back to the
area of good reception to report back.

My impression is that reception got worse (more no-signal areas) when the
mobile companies started upgrading to 4G. Maybe this was because they turned
off 3G at some masts when 4G was enabled there, and maybe the 4G is higher
frequency and so shorter range because more line-of-sight.

Ironically where we live now, in a tiny hamlet of two farms and about 10
cottages, about 5 miles from a town, has better reception than where we used
to live which was a larger village with other similar ones nearby. All down
to topography - and a nearby hill at the old house was probably the cause of
lots of the mobile phone problems.

[nospam]

In article <q7dhcg$o1r$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
wrote:

exactly.

not everyone needs or wants a gps in a tablet. there's a *lot* of
things that can be done that do not require a gps, and even
location-aware apps don't necessarily need it.

even in a phone, most of the time, a gps is not needed.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 20:29:58 +0100 (GMT+01:00), Libor Striz wrote:

> The all case reminds me the group sci.physics.relativity
> where people with knowledge and skills
> quickly realized that
> "Writing ignorant ideas takes much less time and effort than refuting them."
> Therefore they stopped trying, at least for the notorious ignorants.

Hi Poutnik,

I have a 'strategy' on Usenet, and 'tactics' to fit that strategy.
o Mostly, I try to purposefully alienate the idiots

For example, Jolly Roger is too afraid at this point to respond
o Which is great, since I easily destroy his idiocy in seconds

Also, Lewis and BK are mostly too afraid to respond to me
o Since they're almost as easily shown to be idiots as is Jolly Roger

It's really mainly nospam who still attempts to spar with facts & logic
o Most of the other apologists have realized they can't compete with adults

There is Alan Baker, who is, in effect, even dumber than Jolly Roger
o He's always refuting facts without even _clicking_ on the cites for God's sake

I don't know if you notice that I almost always _read_ the cites people provide!
o And, almost always, from the apologists anyway ...
o Those cites almost never say what the apologists _think_ they say

I find that fact rather amusing.
o The apologists appear to not even comprehend their own cites

Here's an example that happened _today_ in this AirPods thread for example:
o your airpods will die soon
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc>

Am Apple poster referenced a cite in support of his statements
o But that cite, when read, said the OPPOSITE of what the poster thought it said
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc/fA2B7dFhBAAJ>

Can you believe that?

I had to patiently _explain_ to that Apple poster what _his_ cite actually said!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc/BOai0T1qBAAJ>

Worse, that Apple poster came back still _completely_ miscomprehending
his _own_ cite (stating that he's not a lawyer):
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc/WHVR33OhBAAJ>

Well, I'm not a lawyer, where I only claim average intelligence (if that),
and yet, I completely understood what the article said (as it wasn't hard
to understand) so I patiently explained, just moments ago, that the Apple
poster _still_ didn't comprehend that his own cite actually said:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/gdmENqf-6oc/70OFVYW5BAAJ>

The good news is that this Apple poster was being civil, but the bad news
is that this Apple poster was being serious.
o He actually _believed_ the site said something it clearly did not say!

I repeat, I do not believe this Apple poster was pulling my leg
o Repeatedly, this Apple poster _failed to comprehend_ simple facts!

I think the poster was sincere, hence I am _trying_ to help him understand.
o All I want from _any_ poster is to comprehend basic facts

Once we comprehend basic facts, _only then_ can we even *begin* an adult
discourse on the logical ramifications of those basic facts.

So I truly and faithfully want to _help_ this Apple poster ... but ...
o I don't know how to communicate with people who repeatedly fail to
comprehend even the most basic of the most simple of facts.

How can this sincere Apple poster be helped to comprehend facts?
o That! Is my conundrum.

[NY]

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:1lamE.104779$934....@fx16.iad...
> On 2019-03-25 12:25, arlen holder wrote:
>
>> Given the real world use model, those initial two minutes would happen in
>> the background, given that, at least in my situation, the iPads and
>> phones
>> are never turned off.

>
> This is an opaque implementation detail. For battery autonomy purposes,
> you shoudln't assume that the GPS chip is contantly turned on and
> processing GPS signals.
>
> Even when phone is awake, it isn't clear that the GPS chip would be
> active all the time when none of the active apps need location services.

My experience is that my Android phone with GPS enabled in the pull-down
menu (alongside Wifi, mobile internet etc) will usually get a GPS fix within
a few seconds of an application being started which requests GPS. It varies
according to where I am - indoors, in a building with thick walls, it may
take longer or may require me to go outside briefly to get a fix, after
which it continues to work even indoors.

But if I turn off GPS in the pull-down menu and then drive many miles before
turning the GPS back on, it takes *much* longer.

That tends to suggest that even when there isn't any app requesting a GPS
fix, as long as the GPS main-menu option is enabled, the almanac is kept
sufficiently up-to-date to hit the ground running when an app later requests
a fix. But if GPS is turned off, the phone may wipe its copy of the almanac
and then wait until it has all been received once GPS is enabled again.

I have a little helper app called GPS Status which requests A-GPS via mobile
internet or home wifi, and that speeds up the time to first fix a lot
because if the almanac is stale, a new copy is available over the internet
instead of waiting for it to be gradually received over an interval of up to
15 mins. It's no use if there's no internet, but fortunately that isn't too
common. I discovered when I was on a cruise ship that makes you pay for
satellite internet, that access is restricted by TCP port number (so HTTP on
port 80 and POP on port 110 are blocked), but... the port that GPS Status
uses isn't blocked so I can get a quick A-GPS fix without having to pay for
it, if the poor GPS reception caused by the thick steel cabin walls has
prevented the almanac being kept current.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:47:45 -0700, sms wrote:

> +1. Just filter him out like most people do. He'll get tired of his
> schtick and go away.

Hi Steve,

Of all the Apple Apologists, only nospam actually _knows_ the facts.
o You can tell by the rather clever way he words his retorts

Since nospam actually _knows_ the true underlying story
o He's useful, particularly in the strength of his ludicrous denials

For example, nospam denies even what Apple (belatedly) admits
o Witness nospam denying repeatedly that iPhone X models have throttling s/w

Whenever nospam vehemently denies a basic fact, I start looking as to why.

For example, nospam vehemently denied that Apple was worried about 5G
o Where, when I researched the facts, I found the opposite to be the fact

Had nospam not so vehemently denied it, I wouldn't have wondered why.
o Once I researched it, I found that Apple has very lousy choices left.

They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars, in fact, on 5G
o And they're _still_ woefully behind Qualcomm (and may never catch up)

Hence, my point on nospam is the following summary:
o While he knows more than any of the other classic Apple Apologists
o He's wrong more than he is right (his credibility is worse than a coin toss)
o But, when he's repeatedly and vehemently wrong ... something is up.

Almost always (if not always), when he's ludicrously wrong
o He's vainly attempting to justify a purely MARKETING decision by Apple

In _this_ case, I think this iFixit blog, while only "chatter", sums it up.
o Is there a GPS in the iPad Air?
<https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/148307/Is+there+a+GPS+in+the+iPad+Air>

*"There is no technical reason why the wireless version should*
*not have a dedicated GPS unit. Apple deliberately restricted
*this feature in the wireless versions of the iPad"*

While that chatter is old (2013), the information appears to be sound:
"The GPS module is built into the cellular module, so if you buy a
Wi-Fi version, there is no GPS capability."

"The iPad does not need cellular connection for GPS service.
It's just that Apple chose not to include a GPS in the wifi only models."

"*Even without any cellular service, GPS will still work fine*"
"*GPS does not require cellular service to work*"

"Nexus 7 and Nexus 9 wifi-only models both come with GPS chips
without the need for the cellular chip. Apple could have gone
with this type of solution but chose to stick with the GPS on the
cellular chip. Not sure if it's to gimp the cheaper version..."

"The issue is not the cellular and GPS chips, it is Apple trying to
force people to spend more. The are GPS chips that are cheap
and Apple could have use them in the Wi-Fi only ipad, but decided
not to therfore [sic] forcing people to buy a more expensive device."

While there was some chatter to the contrary on that iFixit blog,
(and some wrong answers), this logical deduction remains viable:
o *A tablet with just GPS (sans cellular) would work just fine*

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:06:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>>>> if there was no cellular radio, and therefore no assisted gps, it would
>>>> have taken longer to get a fix, very likely quite a bit longer.
>>>
>>> No. Not a cellular version.
>>
>> yes a cellular version. ipads with gps have a cellular radio.
>>
>> it's an assisted gps, which is why it was quick.
>
> That could indeed explain it. So why are you on about waiting in a
> parking lot?

Hi Alan Browne,

FACT & LOGIC

Here is an article, albeit from 2015, that bolsters what you found out.
o Does the iPad have a "real GPS" in it?
<https://ipadpilotnews.com/2015/12/ipad-real-gps/>

FACT:
"It┬ important to note that the iPad does not require the cellular
connection. In fact, you can purchase a 3G/LTE iPad, never sign up
for service with Verizon or AT&T and still get very good GPS
performance. If you want to test this, go to the Settings app and
turn off Cellular Data, Bluetooth and WiFi. Even with all of its
wireless radios off, the iPad will still show your position on
ForeFlight or Garmin Pilot (again, assuming it┬ a 3G/LTE model).
And once you┴e flying, your iPad will have an excellent view of
the sky and should maintain good GPS accuracy."

LOGIC:
o A GPS-only tablet (sans cellular) would work just fine for navigation.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:45:50 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> My question of fact & utility:
> o Does Apple even make an iPad with WiFi & GPS (but no cellular)?

Hi Steve,
FACT & LOGIC

Only when we know the facts, can we attempt to deduce the logic.

This Apple support article asks about a GPS-only iPad.
o Does the new iPad have GPS?
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7907532>

Here is the main related quote from the respondents:
"As with all iPads, yes, the wifi+cellular model includes GPS.
The wifi only model does not. "

Another quote is of use in terms of assessing the facts:
"The GPS works without having to activate the Cellular service"

I have no reason to believe those statements false; so I'll go with them
o Unless someone reasonably shows otherwise (facts are funny that way)

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:19:52 -0400, nospam wrote:

> even in a phone, most of the time, a gps is not needed.

Hi nospam,

Personally, I keep "location" off, and when I do turn it on, I immediately
change the default to "GPS only", which works just fine for me on my
Android phone.

On my iOS tablets, both the cellular and non cellular tablets will 'do'
navigation, but, as Steve noted, the navigation on the non-cellular tablets
is inferior, but not due to the lack of cellular - but to the lack of GPS.

There's clearly a PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION strategy going on, IMHO.

Much like Android phones work all by themselves, but Apple iPhones
literally _require_ the addition of both ten-pounds of computer & hundreds
of megabytes of software just to do the _simplest_ of things that Android
phones do all by their itty bitty selves, this GPS/cellular combination is
an artificial requirement by Apple, IMHO, almost certainly for PRODUCT
DIFFERENTIATION reasons.

As the iFixIt discussion showed, it's possible that Apple chose to
intermingle the GPS with cellular chip so as to 'gimp' the cheaper
wifi-only model.

Since Apple has one of the finest marketing organizations on this planet
o That could be a logical PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION choice for them.

I don't ever deny that Apple is _great_ at PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION.
o It's like offering navigation only in the GXL model of vehicles
o Where navigation isn't offered in the L & GXL models.

The point is that this "gold plating" of the emblems isn't a technical
decision so much as it's a MARKETING PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION decision.

The facts appear clear that Apple made the conscious decision to "bundle"
the "navigation" system with the "Deluxe" model, but not on the non-deluxe
model, much as car manufacturers use the same marketing tactic.

There's no reason they can't offer the option in the lower-priced product,
but they prefer, in one respondent's words, they prefer to "gimp" the lower
end model.

Let's be clear that I do not disparage Apple for gimping the model
o I simply ask you, nospam, to stick to the facts
o And for you, nospam, to stick to logical deductions based on those facts

FACT:
o The fact appears to be that Apple doesn't offer a GPS sans cellular
o The fact appears to be that Android manufacturers do offer that option
o The fact appears to be that GPS works fine all by its itty bitty self

LOGIC:
o The logical deduction is that the main reason iPads don't have it
o Is perhaps to "gimp" the WiFi models for PRODUCT DIFFERNTIATION purposes

LOGIC:
Whenever your arguments are patently ludicrous, nospam
o IMHO, it's almost always your attempt to justify such MARKETING decisions

What's different about you, nospam, is not that you justify MARKETING
o Every sensible adults comprehends why MARKETING does what they do

What's different about you, nospam, is that you try to justify what is most
likely (IMHO) a purely marketing decision, on what you attempt to portray
as factual grounds (which don't hold up to even the most basic of
scrutiny).

For example, "huge parking lots of people waiting for a satellite fix".

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:26:42 -0000, NY wrote:

> But if I turn off GPS in the pull-down menu and then drive many miles before
> turning the GPS back on, it takes *much* longer.

Hi NY,
You didn't say how much longer, where the order of magnitude matters.
o For example, nospam implies cold start order of magnitude of 15 minutes.

In my overnight test (which is all I'm willing to leave the phone off for)
o It was less than 2 minutes (let's call it 1.5 minutes for easy math).
<https://i.postimg.cc/WbNBhNFB/gpsfix09.jpg>

NOTE: My phone was wrong on it's current time by 10 hours in that test!

Since my tests keeping the phone off for as long as I felt comfortable
showed an order of magnitude less for my "cold'ish" start, I'm curious if
just driving a hundred miles or so, for you, would be much different.
<https://i.postimg.cc/hGBhdQLD/gpsfix02.jpg>

Bear in mind my phone internal clock was off by 10 hours!
o And even then, it got a fix in one tenth the "up to" time nospam claims
<https://i.postimg.cc/DZsTdxnR/gpsfix06.jpg>

Given my phone was "wrong" by ten hours, and it _still_ got a fix in about
1.5 minutes... I have to ask you (since your phone will still at least have
the correct time in your tests)...

How much of a difference from that 1.5 minutes (admittedly stationary) are
you seeing in that 100 (or so) miles traveled given the phone knows the
previous location, current time delta and satellite trajectories?
<https://i.postimg.cc/L8XF09mt/gpsfix07.jpg>

I assume, offhand anyway, that the only thing the phone should be "off" on,
initially, is your current location, where it will be off by, oh, what? 100
miles or so?

How much time does it take the GPS to recover from that 100 mile change?

[nospam]

In article <q7dobk$8p4$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> o For example, nospam implies cold start order of magnitude of 15 minutes.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_to_first_fix>
Manufacturers typically claim the factory TTFF to be 15 minutes

> In my overnight test (which is all I'm willing to leave the phone off for)
> o It was less than 2 minutes (let's call it 1.5 minutes for easy math).

that was *warm* start, not a cold start, and even 1.5 minutes is far
too long to wait to start using an app.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:32:51 -0400, nospam wrote:

> that was *warm* start, not a cold start, and even 1.5 minutes is far
> too long to wait to start using an app.

Hi nospam,

FACTS + LOGIC

FACT:
o *Apple _gimps_ devices all the time*, nospam (sometimes even secretly)
LOGIC:
o IMHO, *Apple likely _gimped_ cheaper iPads* (for PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION)

I realize you'll say _anything_ to apologize for Apple's MARKETING decision.
o The fact is that a GPS tablet (sans cellular) would work just fine.

Remember, that fix time in my test was with the battery _out_ overnight!
o Which was about as long as that phone has ever been left that way

Notice it still got a fix in a short time even with the clock off by 10 hours
o And, in reality, the phone would fix in the background anyway.

I realize you don't _like_ these facts (in fact, you _hate_ these facts!)
o Facts hinder you from apologizing for Apple's MARKETING decisions

The logic is rather clear, where it's very likely Apple _GIMPED_ the iPad
o At least others on the net have surmised that (which I don't deny)

When I was in technical marketing, for example, we gimped lots of product
o We would order, essentially, loops, to _slow down_ the low-end software

That way the sales organization could literally _guarantee_ speedup times
o For the higher-end software

The *GIMPING* of the lower-end software was a basic MARKETING move
o Which, if we did it, certainly Apple has figured it out all on their own

Never forget Apple has one of the finest MARKETING orgs on this planet
o For them to gimp the lower-end iPods would be a normal part of business

Before you claim Apple wouldn't _gimp_ the iPads, look at the known facts
o Apple clearly _gimped_ people's iPhones (yes, even the iPhone X), nospam
o Apple clearly _gimped_ the Intel modems on those same phones, nospam
o Apple even clearly gimped the FM radio chip in the iPhone 6s & 6s Plus

*The fact is that Apple _gimps_ iOS devices all the time, nospam!*
o The fact you don't like facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts.

FACT:
o *Apple _gimps_ devices all the time*, nospam (sometimes even secretly)
LOGIC:
o IMHO, *Apple likely _gimped_ lower end iPads (for MARKETING reasons)*

[123456789]

arlen holder wrote:
> 123456789 wrote:

>> most folks these days use a phone [instead of a GPS
>> enabled iPad].

> Depending on the size of your phone,

On trips we usually use the wife's iPhone 8+ GPS routing in
TALKING mode so screen size really doesn't matter all that much.

> and on strength of the difference in your bifocals,

I have trifocals. But I have no trouble in seeing a phone
screen. Just not while driving...

> a tablet can have a HUGE screen compared to that of a
> phone which can make a HUGE difference on the eyes,
> particularly in a vehicle where the quicker you can make
> out the text the better.

I hope you're not one of those trying to make out the text
on your tablet at 80MPH... 8-O

> I find that the Google talking map directions are pretty
> good nowadays, even down to the lane you need to be in
> and a reasonably accurate distance (e.g., "in 800 feet
> use the left two lanes to turn slightly left onto Main
> Street").

Yup. The wife's iPhone does the same thing. We usually use
her phone as she can mess with it while I give full
attention to the road. But in the past I've found both travel
direction systems (hers and my phone using Google) to be
about the same quality. YMMV of course depending on where
you travel...

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:19:16 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

> I hope you're not one of those trying to make out the text
> on your tablet at 80MPH... 8-O

Hi 123456789,

I almost hate to mention it, but in the _reliable_ data (i.e., not from the
lawyers or insurance companies), there is ZERO evidence in the overall
accident rate statistics (which are _accurately_ compiled by the Census
Bureau since something like the 1920s) of even the slightest blip (up or
down) in the overall accident rate (which takes into account miles driven)
in not only _each_ of the fifty US states individually, but in the _entire_
country (and in Australia, although compiled by a different agency).

I realize, just as with high-octane gasoline & techron "soap for gas", most
people "intuit" a completely imaginary belief system that cell phone use
while driving "causes" an increase in accidents.

There are exact ZERO studies which use that reliable data which claim that
the cellphone use while driving causes an increase in accident rates.

Zero.

I repeat: Zero.

The _closest_ anyone can get to _all_ laws in the USA over the past few
decades having _any_ effect on accident statistics, is a clearly
second-order effect on length of hospital stay, but, that statistic
_included_ seat-belt laws, which clearly are _different_ than cellphone
laws in terms of injuries sustained.

I realize most people can't comprehend that what I just said is a fact
o Most people have completely imaginary belief systems

If I didn't look for myself, even I would intuit, logically, that
cellphones are an increased distraction and that distractions _definitely_
are a major cause of accidents, hence, an increased distraction _should_
(intuitively anyway), you'd think, cause an uptick in the accidents in the
reliably compiled record.

And yet, no such uptick exists.
o In fact, the accident rate goes down every year ever so slightly.

There isn't even the slightest blip in the accurate record of the US
accident rate compiled by the US Census Bureau during the astoundingly huge
explosion of cellphone ownership (and hence, presumed use).

Fancy that.
o It's like telling someone that high octane gas isn't what they think it is
o It's like telling someone that techron polyetheramines aren't what they think

Of course, there are _plenty_ of in vitro studies which show that driving
while using a cell phone is as dangerous as (you name it, they go so far as
to say "drunk driving" for Christs' sake).

The funny thing is that if those in vitro studies carried over to the in
vivo world, then, um, er ... where are the accidents?

HINT: Anecdotal accidents don't count since science isn't based on
anecdotes.

BTW, I do have an hypothesis for why there are no accident rate increases
due to cellphone use while driving, but until folks comprehend the facts,
giving them the logic is like feeding pumpkins to the squirrels. It's too
much for them to swallow.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 21:38:28 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> BTW, I do have an hypothesis for why there are no accident rate increases
> due to cellphone use while driving, but until folks comprehend the facts,
> giving them the logic is like feeding pumpkins to the squirrels. It's too
> much for them to swallow.

BTW, before we go that route, most idiots claim (sans a shred of evidence)
that the yearly increases in safety (e.g., traction control systems, 3rd
brake lights, LED tail lights, etc.) COMPLETELY account for complete
canceling of the presumed ASTRONOMICAL increase in the accident rate
(remember, they liken cellphone use to "drunk driving").

All I would tell them is to look at the astoundingly huge numbers of
cellphones during an astoundingly short period of time, where we're now
essentially saturated with cellphones (five are found in every accident
that involves five adults, for example).

The astoundingly huge number of cellphones had a definite start period, and
a skyrocketing adoption rate, and then a plateau.

For any other fact to EXACTLY cancel that out, in both magnitude and in
time, is preposterous, particularly if the proponent can't even _name_ the
canceling object so that we could check out when in time it was implemented
and what its adoption rate is.

I realize my statements DESTROY the imaginary beliefs most people have.

I repeat that if I didn't check the facts, I would have believed myself
that cellphones are an increased distraction, and that distractions must be
causing accidents, so that the accident rate in the USA must have been
affected by cellphone ownership rates, where we can presume a non-trivial
percentage of them are being used while people are driving.

And yet, there are ZERO scientific papers showing _any_ actual increase on
the accident rate in vivo, in the United States (where good data exists
from the Census Bureau).

NOTE: Almost all the bullshit you'll see if from lawyers and insurance
companies, and quite a bit of bullshit from the police - but NONE of them
ever quote the _reliable_ statistics from the US Census Bureau.

HINT: A copy ticks a box saying "cellphone involved" in an accident but he
has _no idea_ in most cases whether the cell phone was actually involved;
he just knows he found five of them for five adults, maybe even six or
seven electronic devices for five adults (so cellphones are "found" in
almost all, if not all accidents).

[123456789]

arlen holder wrote:
> 123456789 wrote:

>> I hope you're not one of those trying to make out the
>> text on your tablet at 80MPH... 8-O

> There are exact ZERO studies which use that reliable data
> which claim that the cellphone use while driving causes
> an increase in accident rates.

I can't prove you wrong. A quick search didn't bring any
studies up for me either. However common sense would
indicate to me that texting at 80MPH is not a good idea. YMMV.

There have been several fatalities in my local area caused
by texting drivers. (The cause can be determined by driver
admission and/or cell records.) Perhaps the most famous (and
unusual) was the self driving Uber test car whose safety
driver was watching a program on her phone when running down
a pedestrian...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/22/17492320/safety-driver-self-driving-uber-crash-hulu-police-report

[123456789]

123456789 <12...@12345.com> Wrote in message:

Perhaps the most famous (andunusual) was the self driving Uber

test car whose safety driver was watching a program on her phone
when running down a pedestrian...https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/
22/17492320/safety-driver-self-driving-uber-crash-hulu-police-report

BTW in fitting in well with this discussion notice that the Uber
self-driving system interface is an iPad mounted on the
vehicle?s center console... ;)

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:47:19 -0700, 123456789 wrote:

> I can't prove you wrong.

Hi 123456789,

Bear in mind I've _never_ been wrong on material fact(1).
o I happen to have a belief system which is _based_ on facts.

I don't trust my intuition, where, even my intuition intuits that cellphone
use _must_ be causing greater rates of accidents.

But when I check the data, I find that this intuition is dead wrong.

My belief system is NOT based on intuition
o My belief system is based on solid verifiable facts.

The fact is that the accident rate is wholly unaffected by cellphone use.
o Anyone who disputes that fact is _welcome_ to find _reliable_ cites
showing that the accident rate in the USA has shown _any_ effect whatsoever
(either up or down) due to the utter explosion of cellphone ownership in a
very sharp spike, currently plateuing at about 100% ownership among adults.

> A quick search didn't bring any
> studies up for me either.

There are ZERO reliable in vivo reports of the accident rate being affected
in _any_ measurable way in the USA. Take note of that number. Zero.

What you'll find are lawyers and insurance companies, and even government
agencies (they make millions on the tickets, particularly in California &
NJ) make all sorts of woefully unsubstantiated claims.

The normal claim goes like this... "studies show that using a cell phone
while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving"... where I'm sure the in
vitro studies showed that ... but they all fail one simple logical test.

If the cellphone use was _that_ distracting, where are the accidents?
o Note: I'm taking about the accident _rate_ (which is the only meaningful
figure) as there will _always_ be accidents (for reasons that I know, but
until we agree on the facts, we can't get to _why_ cellphone use doesn't
affect the well-documented well-honed-process by the US Census Bureau for
the actual and real accident rate in the USA for every state since the
1920s or so).

> However common sense would
> indicate to me that texting at 80MPH is not a good idea. YMMV.

Yes. Common sense fails.

The reason common sense fails is that common sense doesn't account for what
happens when a _new_ distraction adds to the already huge list of current
distractions which occur while driving a car.

We can't get to that point yet, of why common sense fails until we agree on
the facts that the well-documented well-recorded since the 1920's accident
rate is wholly unaffected by skyrocketing cellphone use.

Hint: Common sense says that people in Australia are upside down.
And common sense says the earth is flat.
And common sense says the stars rotate around the earth.
And common sense says that glass flows in old farmhouse windows.
And common sense says that more expensive things are better.
And common sense says that high octane gas is better than low octane gas.
And common sense says warm water would hold more dissolved gases.
(on and on and on I can give examples where common sense is wrong).

The mythbusters wouldn't even exist if common sense prevailed.

> There have been several fatalities in my local area caused
> by texting drivers. (The cause can be determined by driver
> admission and/or cell records.)

I never once said accidents don't occur.
What I said is that the well-documented accident _rate_ is unaffected.

> Perhaps the most famous (and
> unusual) was the self driving Uber test car whose safety
> driver was watching a program on her phone when running down
> a pedestrian...

I never once said distractions aren't the proximal cause of many accidents.
And I never once said that cellphone use isn't distracting.

And I never once said that people don't _use_ their cellphones while
driving (despite the idiotic kneejerk laws to the contrary)...

Nor did I even once say that cellphones aren't an ADDED distraction.

Make a note of that last comment, as therein lies the solution to the
conundrum.

If cellphones are as distracting as people say they are,
Q: Why is the well-documented accident rate wholly unaffected?

HINT: I have an hypothesis which solves that conundrum; but we can't get
there until we agree on the facts.

--
(1) Since I'm human, and since I've posted thousands upon thousands of
facts on Usenet, I must have, at least once, gotten a material fact wrong,
but since my belief system is based on facts, nobody has _ever_ found a
material fact wrong, and Lord knows, some would _love_ to prove me wrong .

[arlen holder]

Hi 123456789,

If we agree that "common sense" says a lot of things that are dead wrong.

And if we agree that common sense says that using a cellphone while driving
is an ADDED distraction that didn't exist before cellphones.

And, if we agree that distractions are often a proximal cause of accidents.

And if we agree that cellphones are being used daily while driving
(despite the idiotically knee-jerk laws to the contrary).

And if we agree that insurance companies, lawyer, and police agencies
_love_ to claim that cellphone use causes accidents.

And if we agree on the utter improbability of an EXACTLY PERFECTLY MATCHED
countering force (such as traction control, 3rd brake lights, LED brake
lights, etc.) that EXACTLY matches not only the astoundingly huge adoption
rate spike of cellphones but also the timing exactly and the exact plateau
as adoption has likely surpassed the 100% mark for adults in the USA such
that there's at least one mobile device per adult involved in every
accident at this point in time.

And if we agree there are NUMEROUS studies, all in vitro, which "purport"
to show cellphones are as distracting as (you name it).

And yet, at the same time, if we agree that there are ZERO reliable
statistics that show _any_ blip on the accident rate due to cellphones in
the real world (i.e., in vivo), where the US Census Bureau has been
compiling RELIABLE accident rate statistics since the 1920s.

Then, the cellphone paradox is a classic paradox which has a simple answer.
Q: Where are the accidents predicted by those who claim cellphone use while
driving is such an added distraction that it _must_ be adding to the
accident rate?

That! Is the common-sense question to ask of rational sentient adults.

[123456789]

arlen holder wrote:

> "common sense" says a lot of things that are dead wrong.

Texting at 80MPH being unwise isn't one of those common
sense things that is dead wrong, it's more just DEAD... right?

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-26 15:32, nospam wrote:

> that was *warm* start, not a cold start, and even 1.5 minutes is far
> too long to wait to start using an app.

A warm start means you have valid almanach and ephemeris and that your
GPS's last location is roughly within the same region (when calculating
what satellites should be overhead at this time, a rough region is all
it takes (eg: southern québec).

HOWEVER: this does not garantee instant fix.

Foiliage/buildings may obscur enough satellites that you can't get the 3
needed for 2D location (4 needed for 2D position + altitude). So it will
wait tiill it sees enough satellites.

And going at speed also requires longer time to get a fix because of
dopler shift. The GPS will calculate expect dopler shift based on you
being stable and satellite moving in a certain direction towards or away
from you. But if you are moving, this changes it, and when GPS doesn't
hear the staellite, it will try at different frequencies and if it gets
that statellite it then proceeds with another satellite and eventually
has enough to calculate your location speed and heading.

Walking speed doesn't matter. But highway speed/train *starts* to
matter, and on a plane it matters a lot.

[sms]

If you're only using a tablet as a content consumption device that never
leaves the house then yes, that's true. But many more apps than just
navigation apps require a GPS receiver.

You pointed out a key difference between Android tablets and iPads.
iPads are consumer electronics devices. Android tablets are not poplular
as content consumption devices, but are widely used in the commercial,
industrial, medical, engineering, and scientific fields. Android
tablets, because of their greater hardware capabilities, are widely used
in these fields. They're connected to all sorts of sensors, actuators,
and other peripherals via USB and Bluetooth SPP. This isn't possible on
an iOS device, even though the processor on the iPad is much more
powerful than what is used in Android tablets.

The newest iPad Pro switched to USB-C, but it is very limited in what is
supported and you can't add drivers for devices. These are decisions
that Apple made when they decided what the target market for the iPad
was, and of course it's been wildly successful. No kid begs his or her
parents for an Android tablet! Apple's recent move into streaming
content and gaming makes this even clearer.

I use my iPad Pro mainly for e-mail, calendar, and for the iLegislate
app, more of a netbook type devices. I use navigation extensively when
traveling outside the U.S..

[sms]

On 3/25/2019 6:34 AM, NY wrote:

> Sadly there are too many places, even in built-up areas (small villages,
> towns, cities - as opposed to moorland with several miles between farms)
> where mobile phone and internet coverage is not possible.

Well it's possible, but the carriers have chosen not to spend the money
to cover those areas.

In California, there are very long stretches of state and interstate
highways where there is not coverage by all four carriers. Verizon does
provide better coverage than the other carriers, with AT&T second.
Sprint and T-Mobile have extremely poor rural coverage, though Sprint
still has significant amounts of roaming coverage.

There are also areas, such as 120 through Yosemite, where there is no
coverage on any carrier.

> You'd think that busy roads (Trunk A roads, motorways) and railway lines
> should be given seamless mobile coverage to at least 3G standard,
> because there is bound to be a lot of usage on those routes.

No. It costs no more for LTE coverage than 3G coverage, the issue is the
cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining cell towers. In
California, we used to have a lot of small rural carriers that slowly
got gobbled up by Verizon and AT&T. Those rural carriers did a pretty
good job of covering at least the small towns and the roads between
them, and that infrastructure is still there. For example, AT&T bought
Edge Wireless, and Verizon bought Golden State Cellular. Similar things
happened in other parts of the country. This is why AT&T and Verizon
have so much more rural coverage than T-Mobile or Sprint.

[nospam]

In article <q7g6un$ts9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> IMVAIO, the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order
> >> to get the GPS on an iPad.
> >
> > Only if you need GPS capability and most folks these days use a
> > phone for that.
> >
> > The wife's iPad never leaves the house except on long trips
> > and then to kill the road tedium she reads (yucky) romance
> > novels. Spend extra bucks for that??  :-/
>
> If you're only using a tablet as a content consumption device that never
> leaves the house then yes, that's true. But many more apps than just
> navigation apps require a GPS receiver.

nowhere near as many as you claim. you also do not understand that ios
devices do not need a gps for an exact location.

> You pointed out a key difference between Android tablets and iPads.
> iPads are consumer electronics devices. Android tablets are not poplular
> as content consumption devices, but are widely used in the commercial,
> industrial, medical, engineering, and scientific fields. Android
> tablets, because of their greater hardware capabilities, are widely used
> in these fields. They're connected to all sorts of sensors, actuators,
> and other peripherals via USB and Bluetooth SPP. This isn't possible on
> an iOS device, even though the processor on the iPad is much more
> powerful than what is used in Android tablets.

utter nonsense. you're clearly trolling.

ipads are far more widely used than android tablets, *particularly* in
medical, and using a wide variety of peripherals, including via usb and
bluetooth. spp has long been replaced with newer and better profiles,
and usb works perfectly fine.

> The newest iPad Pro switched to USB-C, but it is very limited in what is
> supported and you can't add drivers for devices.

there's no need to add drivers.

a custom device generally has its own app, which can communicate in
whatever way is needed, via usb, bluetooth, wifi, ethernet or something
else.

> These are decisions
> that Apple made when they decided what the target market for the iPad
> was, and of course it's been wildly successful. No kid begs his or her
> parents for an Android tablet! Apple's recent move into streaming
> content and gaming makes this even clearer.

in other words, apple doesn't need to change what they're doing.

> I use my iPad Pro mainly for e-mail, calendar, and for the iLegislate
> app, more of a netbook type devices. I use navigation extensively when
> traveling outside the U.S..

if that's all you're doing, then you don't need an ipad pro.

[123456789]

sms wrote:
> 123456789 wrote:

>> sms wrote:

>>> the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order to
>>> get the GPS on an iPad.

>> The wife's iPad never leaves the house except on long
>> trips and then to kill the road tedium she reads
>> (yucky) romance novels. Spend extra bucks for that??
>> :-/

> If you're only using a tablet as a content consumption
> device that never leaves the house then yes, that's
> true.

We are now apparently in agreement.

> But many more apps than just navigation apps require a
> GPS receiver.

Perhaps the App store weeds them out for the GPS free iPad?
The Play Store tells me when a particular app won't run on
one of my Android devices.

> iPads are consumer electronics devices. Android tablets
> are not poplular as content consumption devices

There are usually 6 or more of my Android stuff to my wife's
3 iOS things. But then I'm probably not the norm. In my
extended family I'm guessing it's 3 to 1 in favor of iStuff.

> Android tablets, because of their greater hardware
> capabilities, are widely used in these fields. They're
> connected to all sorts of sensors, actuators, and other
> peripherals via USB and Bluetooth SPP. This isn't
> possible on an iOS device,

Did you notice my earlier post where an iPad mounted on the
dashboard was the safety driver's controller for an Uber
self driving car?

> The newest iPad Pro switched to USB-C, but it is very
> limited in what is supported and you can't add drivers
> for devices.

My recently purchased Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 has USB-C. The
biggest advantage for me is that I can get the charger
plugged in on the first try.

> These are decisions that Apple made when they decided
> what the target market for the iPad was, and of course
> it's been wildly successful.

Other than one battery failure I've been completely
satisfied with Apple products. They just work. I like
Android stuff because as a hobby I like gadgets that allow
me to play with them.

> I use my iPad Pro mainly for e-mail, calendar, and for
> the iLegislate app, more of a netbook type devices. I use
> navigation extensively when traveling outside the U.S..

I got my Galaxy Tab S4 (same price class as the iPad Pro)
because I wanted a fast tablet with a good screen which it
is. It has never left the house and likely never will. This
Chromebook I'm posting with is now my new traveling companion...

[sms]

On 3/27/2019 10:15 AM, 123456789 wrote:
> sms wrote:
>> 123456789 wrote:
>>> sms wrote:
>
>>>> the extra $130 to $150 is well worth it in order to get the GPS on
>>>> an iPad.
>
>>> The wife's iPad never leaves the house except on long trips and then
>>> to kill the road tedium she reads (yucky) romance novels. Spend extra
>>> bucks for that?? :-/
>
>> If you're only using a tablet as a content consumption device that
>> never leaves the house then yes, that's true.
>
> We are now apparently in agreement.
>
>> But many more apps than just navigation apps require a GPS receiver.
>
> Perhaps the App store weeds them out for the GPS free iPad?
> The Play Store tells me when a particular app won't run on
> one of my Android devices.

It may. We have three iOS devices in our house, all with a GPS. But some
of the apps that use a GPS can still partially function without it, so
the author may not want to lose that sale and may just allow it to be
installed on a non-GPS device.

> There are usually 6 or more of my Android stuff to my wife's
> 3 iOS things. But then I'm probably not the norm. In my
> extended family I'm guessing it's 3 to 1 in favor of iStuff.

Ditto. Mostly iPhones in my extended family. One adult niece switched
from Android to iOS because her friends used iMessage extensively. Even
though she got the employee discount on Samsung devices.

>> Android tablets, because of their greater hardware capabilities, are
>> widely used in these fields. They're connected to all sorts of
>> sensors, actuators, and other peripherals via USB and Bluetooth SPP.
>> This isn't possible on an iOS device,
>
> Did you notice my earlier post where an iPad mounted on the
> dashboard was the safety driver's controller for an Uber
> self driving car?

Not the controller, but the front-end interface and display. That can be
done via Wi-Fi or wired Ethernet.

<snip>

> Other than one battery failure I've been completely
> satisfied with Apple products. They just work. I like
> Android stuff because as a hobby I like gadgets that allow
> me to play with them.

Yes, as consumer devices the iOS products are very good. Apple has made
forays into commercial products in the past and decided that was not a
good business decision because the volumes are small and the support
requirements are higher. It got some users really upset when a product
was discontinued but that's life. One semiconductor company I worked for
made forays into consumer products and it was not a good move and they
dropped all those products. Though they got acquired by a semiconductor
company that still makes one consumer product, calculators.

[nospam]

In article <q7gd4s$7u5$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> But many more apps than just navigation apps require a GPS receiver.
> >
> > Perhaps the App store weeds them out for the GPS free iPad?
> > The Play Store tells me when a particular app won't run on
> > one of my Android devices.
>
> It may. We have three iOS devices in our house, all with a GPS. But some
> of the apps that use a GPS can still partially function without it, so
> the author may not want to lose that sale and may just allow it to be
> installed on a non-GPS device.

it's not a question of losing sales, but that developers know that a
gps is not necessarily required.

location can be obtained in a variety of ways without a gps, often
*very* accurately.

> > Other than one battery failure I've been completely
> > satisfied with Apple products. They just work. I like
> > Android stuff because as a hobby I like gadgets that allow
> > me to play with them.
>
> Yes, as consumer devices the iOS products are very good. Apple has made
> forays into commercial products in the past and decided that was not a
> good business decision because the volumes are small and the support
> requirements are higher.

utter nonsense.

ios devices are widely used in a variety of commercial and vertical
market applications, particularly medical and engineering.

<http://obamapacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/iPad-Medical-Real-Tim
e-Heart-Rate-Monitor.jpg>

<https://m.eet.com/media/1244259/Moku1.jpg>
<https://m.eet.com/media/1244260/MokuSC.png>

[nospam]

In article <q7gb3m$q01$1...@dont-email.me>, 123456789 <12...@12345.com>
wrote:

>
> > But many more apps than just navigation apps require a
> > GPS receiver.
>
> Perhaps the App store weeds them out for the GPS free iPad?

a developer can choose to require specific hardware, in which case the
app will be listed, but it cannot be installed.

however, very few apps *require* a gps, and even navigation apps work
surprisingly well without it.

> The Play Store tells me when a particular app won't run on
> one of my Android devices.

same as the app store.

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-27 12:38, nospam wrote:

> nowhere near as many as you claim. you also do not understand that ios
> devices do not need a gps for an exact location.

Good joke.

Approximating location based on some database of where they think a
Wi-fi is located or locationof nearest cellular tower is not an "exact"
location. I have pictures taken in new Jersey that were geolocated some
50km off where I had not been (so couldn't have been "last known GPS
location").

[JF Mezei]

On 2019-03-27 14:07, nospam wrote:
> however, very few apps *require* a gps, and even navigation apps work
> surprisingly well without it.

Thell that to marketing departments who require the location of every
user of their app so they can leverage that info to sell ads etc.

[nospam]

In article <R1QmE.225651$y65.1...@fx44.iad>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > nowhere near as many as you claim. you also do not understand that ios
> > devices do not need a gps for an exact location.
>
> Good joke.

it's not a joke.

> Approximating location based on some database of where they think a
> Wi-fi is located or locationof nearest cellular tower is not an "exact"
> location.

yes it is in nearly every case.

i've seen ipod touches and wifi ipads show which side of the building
it's on.

> I have pictures taken in new Jersey that were geolocated some
> 50km off where I had not been (so couldn't have been "last known GPS
> location").

that's the exception, not the rule.