Using Android's Mock Location Setting to Watch TV Programming from Other Areas

[sms]

You can watch out of area broadcasts from stations that have
live-streaming, on an Android phone or an Android tablet that has a GPS
(many Wi-Fi models and all LTE models).

Don't try just using a VPN set to the location of the station, that
doesn't work since they now look at the GPS location. This means that
you can't watch on a laptop with a VPN, the broadcasters are wise to that.

1. Turn on Developer Options
<https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-do-i-turn-on-the-developer-options-menu-on-my-samsung-galaxy-device/>

2. Install this app:
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rosteam.gpsemulator>

3. Go to Mock Locations under Developer Options and choose the App you
just installed.

4. Launch the GPS emulator and, on the map, choose the place you want to
appear to be located.

5. Open the TV station's streaming link in a browser.

6. For PBS stations you can also use the PBS Android App at
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.pbs.video> once you
set the mock location.

7. This method also works with apps like DirecTV Stream, so you are able
to watch out-of-area stations, if you want to watch things like sporting
events that aren't being broadcast in the area where you are located.

8. If your phone can cast wirelessly to a TV, or supports HDMI-Out via
the USB port, you can watch on a larger screen.

Sadly, none of this works on iOS devices because Apple doesn't allow
mock GPS locations.

[nospam]

In article <tc9unn$15o6l$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> Sadly, none of this works on iOS devices because Apple doesn't allow
> mock GPS locations.

sadly, you are again incorrect despite it having been explained to you
before. the method is different, that's all.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 02.08.22 um 03:30 schrieb sms:

That is fraud should it work.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[AJL]

If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...

[sms]

On 8/1/2022 9:59 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
> tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
> evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...

Jorge is wrong of course™. Watching a broadcast television station's
stream, that the station provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.

Tonight there was a documentary on the PBS affiliate in Miami. The show
was of little interest to people out of the area, unless you grew up
there and moved away. A lot of people that no longer lived in the area
were complaining that they could not watch it. The TV station streams
all their shows via the PBS app but it defaults to your local PBS station.

I recall that back in the 1970's and 1980's some NFL teams would have
the local station black out the games in order to spur ticket sales, but
I don't think they do that anymore because the lost revenue from the
black out did not make it worthwhile since few fans would buy tickets
when a game was blacked out. Sometimes fans would get in a car and drive
to outside the local area, and go to a bar to watch the game.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Sadly, none of this works on iOS devices because Apple doesn't allow
>> mock GPS locations.
>
> sadly, you are again incorrect despite it having been explained to you

> before. the method is different, that's all.'

I made these screenshots just now to show how wrong nospam always is:
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZKXjT326/mocklocation01.jpg> Android mock location
<https://i.postimg.cc/SRvdYzsF/mocklocation02.jpg> Best mock location apps
<https://i.postimg.cc/DySBk5j2/mocklocation03.jpg> Mock location setting
<https://i.postimg.cc/7L8BN7Nq/mocklocation04.jpg> Spoof wifi/gps provider
<https://i.postimg.cc/MZPdFgYP/mocklocation05.jpg> Randomize road speed

Regarding this purposefully helpful kind-hearted tutorial today...
*Using Android's Mock Location Setting to Watch TV Programming from Other Areas*
<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android/c/TUxUT0GVog8>

1. Steve had kindly posted a tutorial thread for the benefit of everyone.
2. Then nospam denied every fact about Apple that nospam happens to hate.
3. And Joerg Lorenz claimed that using Android settings is "fraud"
(which is something nospam has also claimed in the past, where I doubt
either Joerg or nospam has any idea of the five tenets of fraud).

With respect to nospam's brazen fabrication of imaginary iOS functionality:
*Steve was correct that iOS is crippled in terms of mock GPS location.*

What's interesting is how _desperate_ the iKooks are to deny obvious facts.
iKooks are exactly like flat earthers... insisting the earth is flat.

Unlike nospam, both Steve and I own iOS devices and we _know_ that the mock
location capability of Android does not exist on any iOS device ever made.

At any price.

However, what nospam is _desperately_ trying to allude to is there does
exist an abominable *classic Apple clusterfuck* which allows you to spoof
an iOS location if you go to the trouble of always walking around with a
computer attached to the iPhone just so that you can spoof your location.

In summary, these iKooks _hate_ that iOS is crippled in that it can't do
even the simplest of the most basic of the most common things we do all day
on Android - such as spoof our GPS location.

My key improvement to Steve's tutorial is I wouldn't use the mock-location
app he suggested simply because it has ads, and you don't need those ads.
*GPS Emulator* by RosTeam
Free, +ads, +gsf, +$purchases, rated 4.6, 59.5K reviews, 1M+ Downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rosteam.gpsemulator>

While I have plenty of fake-GPS mock-location apps, this has no ads:
*Fake GPS location* by Lexa
Free, no ads, +gsf, rated 4.6, 456K reviews, 10M+ Downloads
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lexa.fakegps>

Note that these mock location apps are set inside the operating system,
such that EVERY app gets their information from them, and that these mock
location apps can randomly move along roadways by a given distance per
a given time period, and they can start at the last location, and they can
randomize the amount of movement per second, and they can spoof the
altitude, and some can set a specific exact location by the keyboard
instead of only graphically, etc. They can even send the location to
another phone or get the location from another phone if you want that.

Also note these fake-gps mock-location apps can spoof the wi-fi provider.
<https://i.postimg.cc/pdf8prL4/screenshot03.jpg> Spoof Wi-Fi Provider

I'm not sure the use, but others can spoof both the Wi-Fi & GPS provider.

Since every Usenet thread should educate the users, it would be nice if
someone who knows more than I do about this can explain how we might take
advantage of the fact that you can easily spoof the wifi & gps provider.
<https://i.postimg.cc/ZKXjT326/mocklocation01.jpg> Android mock location
<https://i.postimg.cc/SRvdYzsF/mocklocation02.jpg> Best mock location apps
<https://i.postimg.cc/DySBk5j2/mocklocation03.jpg> Mock location setting
<https://i.postimg.cc/7L8BN7Nq/mocklocation04.jpg> Spoof wifi/gps provider
<https://i.postimg.cc/MZPdFgYP/mocklocation05.jpg> Randomize road speed
--
Posted to add additional technical value to what Steve wrote for his
tutorial and to also show how the iKooks like nospam hate that Apple
products are crippled in terms of functionality when compared to Android.

[Andy Burnelli]

It's not fraud.
It's not even close.

Stupid people with no education claim everything they can't do, is fraud.

Never forget people like Joerg Lorenz & nospam are so ill educated they
don't know "fraud" requires EVERY one of multiple tenets to exist.
*The Nine Elements of Common Law Fraud*
<https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud>

Note: None of these tenets exist, let alone _all_ of them, where I note
that every single one has to be proven for it to be considered fraud.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
which in this csae is to show a definition of the tenets of common fraud.

[nospam]

In article <tcacal$1a1q4$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> > If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
> > tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
> > evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...
>
> Jorge is wrong of course . Watching a broadcast television station's
> stream, that the station provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.

it is when you deliberately falsify your location to be able to see it.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
>>> tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
>>> evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...
>>
>> Jorge is wrong of course . Watching a broadcast television station's
>> stream, that the station provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.
>
> it is when you deliberately falsify your location to be able to see it.

Note that nospam, over the years... has called automatic call recording
fraud; he's called mock location fraud; he's called ad blocking fraud; he's
called youtube downloading fraud; he's called loading apps outside the app
store fraud; he's called torrenting operating systems fraud; he's called
using a different carrier on your iPhone than AT&T fraud; etc.

What's the common element in all of these?
*Everything that iOS can't do nospam calls "fraud" because he can't do it*

Every time nospam calls anything he can't figure out how to do on the
iPhone "fraud", it proves my assessment of these iKooks, that they...
a. Are of low IQ
b. Have nor education, and,
c. They _hate_ that iOS is crippled.

Further proof is this isn't the first time (nor will it be the last) that
nospam claims that anything that he can't figure out how to do, is "fraud".

For those who aren't of low IQ and who can comprehend facts, read this:
*What Are the Elements of Common Law Fraud?*
<https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud>

People with a low IQ & no education like nospam & Joerg are incapable of
comprehending that _every_ single one of those elements of fraud must exist

[AJL]

On 8/2/2022 3:38 AM, nospam wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> AJL wrote:

>>> If the reason for a blackout is just to sell more local sporting

>>> event tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using
>>> various methods to evade webpage ads while enjoying the
>>> content...

>> Watching a broadcast television station's stream, that the station
>> provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.

> it is when you deliberately falsify your location to be able to see
> it.

I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.

Is this a fraud or theft?

I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.

Is this a fraud or theft?

I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.

Is this a fraud or theft?

I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.

Is this a fraud or theft?

IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...

(BTW I'm going by the dictionary, not legal definition.)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 02.08.22 um 07:22 schrieb sms:

> On 8/1/2022 9:59 PM, AJL wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
>> tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
>> evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...
>
> Jorge is wrong of course™. Watching a broadcast television station's
> stream, that the station provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.

It is fraud. But you do not understand the economic logic behind it.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 02.08.22 um 12:38 schrieb nospam:

Certainly.

[Andy Burnelli]

AJL wrote:

> (BTW I'm going by the dictionary, not legal definition.)

Using _that_ criteria, nospam & Joerg would claim that everythign they
can't figure out how to do is "theft"...

For example, nospam can't torrent on iOS so he calls _all_ torrents "theft,
as just one example.

Legally, it turns out that even torrenting movies hasn't been proven to be
illegal in the USA, and the proof is that there has NEVER been even a
SINGLE court case in the history of the United States' copyright law that
the defendant challenged that the court ruled on behalf of the plaintiff.

Note that most people are stupid and ill educated, so they simply _assume_
there are cases which the defendant was found guilty even in their almost
complete absence. There was _one_ example (Malibu Entertainment, as I
recall), where the lawyers were disbarred because what _they_ were doing
was seeding the movies themselves, and then prosecuting people by first
asking for money (which many people paid up without a fight) and then they
took a handful to court and in the end, they were all thrown out of court.

The point is that people who are inherently stupid & ill educated think
EVERYTHING that they can't figure out how to do, is "theft", when it's not.

[Andy Burnelli]

Joerg Lorenz wrote:

>>> If the reason for the blackout is just to sell more local sporting event
>>> tickets then I perhaps commit the same fraud by using various methods to
>>> evade webpage ads while enjoying the content...
>>
>> Jorge is wrong of course™. Watching a broadcast television station's
>> stream, that the station provides at no cost, is hardly fraud.
>
> It is fraud. But you do not understand the economic logic behind it.

It is always the case that people who are inherently stupid & ill educated
think EVERYTHING that they can't figure out how to do, is "fraud".

If this Joerg claims it is "fraud", all we ask of him is to act like an
adult (which, is probably impossible for someone as ill educated as he).

Here's the adult question for this Joerg moron:
*Name just one US court case where this has been proven to be fraud*

Name just one.
--
People with very low IQ's don't bother with facts such as legal court cases
since they can't comprehend the technical details inherent in legal cases.

[nospam]

In article <tcbb48$j33$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Note that nospam, over the years... has called automatic call recording
> fraud;

note that you continue to lie.

i never said that. what i said was that recording calls can violate
wiretap laws, depending on jurisdiction.

> he's called mock location fraud;

nope. what i said was spoofing location for the purpose of accessing
content that is otherwise unavailable is fraud.

there are other reasons to spoof location, which might be perfectly
fine. one example is when software developers test a location-aware
app.

> he's called ad blocking fraud;

nope, nor does that even make any sense. it is, however, theft of
services, since ads are how the content providers make money. by
blocking ads you are consuming content and denying compensation for the
provider. because of that, some sites request that ad blockers be
disabled to view the content.

> he's
> called youtube downloading fraud;

nope. what i said was that downloading videos from youtube violates
their terms of service, which is why google removes any app that can do
it. obviously there are numerous ways around that, but that doesn't
change the legality of it.

> he's called loading apps outside the app
> store fraud;

nope, nor does that make any sense. what i said was that sideloading
brings additional risk.

> he's called torrenting operating systems fraud;

nope. what i said was the nearly all torrenting is for illicit content,
such as porn, warez, movies, music, etc.

> he's called
> using a different carrier on your iPhone than AT&T fraud; etc.

nope, nor does that make any sense. anyone can use any carrier they
want, assuming the phone is unlocked. if the phone is locked, then
they'll need to first unlock it to use a foreign carrier.

as usual, you are lying, and in this case, quite a bit. everything you
said was bullshit.

[nospam]

In article <tcbi45$1jbjk$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
> pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

technically, it's theft of services, since ads are how they make money.

realistically, nobody will care, although some sites will refuse to
display any content if they detect ad blocking of any sort.

> I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
> limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

as above, it's technically theft of services and realistically, nobody
will care, although some sites make it a significant effort (more than
just tossing cookies).

> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

if the popup to sign up is a requirement to continue and view content,
then it's a paywall, same as the newspaper subscription you just asked
about. if it's just a request but you can click away and continue, then
blocking it is probably fine.

> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

legally it's copyright infringement, which is informally and often
called theft, despite being incorrect.

> IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...
>
> (BTW I'm going by the dictionary, not legal definition.)

if you're not going by the legal definitions, then it's theft.

[nospam]

In article <tcbmcu$1r81$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> For example, nospam can't torrent on iOS so he calls _all_ torrents "theft,
> as just one example.

that is false, and torrenting on a mobile device is dumb.

> Legally, it turns out that even torrenting movies hasn't been proven to be
> illegal in the USA,

yes it has and many people have been fined for it.

> and the proof is that there has NEVER been even a
> SINGLE court case in the history of the United States' copyright law that
> the defendant challenged that the court ruled on behalf of the plaintiff.

yes there has.

> Note that most people are stupid and ill educated,

you being the prime example of that.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Note that nospam, over the years... has called automatic call recording
>> fraud;
>
> note that you continue to lie.
>
> i never said that. what i said was that recording calls can violate
> wiretap laws, depending on jurisdiction

Everything you can't do on iOS, you call "illegal" nospam.
Why?

I don't know why.
I suspect you don't own the IQ or education to figure out how to do it.

It's not illegal in ANY jurisdiction under many cases, and in many
jurisdictions it's only illegal if both parties aren't advised, and in most
others only if one party (which can be you) doesn't give permission.

The fact is you've erroneously called automatic call recording illegal for
years, when it's not - simply because you _hate_ you can't do it.

>> he's called mock location fraud;
>
> nope. what i said was spoofing location for the purpose of accessing
> content that is otherwise unavailable is fraud.

The fact remains you call everything you _hate_ that you can't do on iOS
either "illegal" or "theft" or "fraud", where the fact remains that you
can't find even a _single_ court case in the USA backing up your claims.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you don't own the IQ nor the education to understand case law.

> there are other reasons to spoof location, which might be perfectly
> fine. one example is when software developers test a location-aware
> app.

The reason I spoof my GPS location is for privacy.

Do you feel privacy should be against the law simply because you can't
figure out how to get location privacy on your beloved but crippled iPhone?

>> he's called ad blocking fraud;
>
> nope, nor does that even make any sense. it is, however, theft of
> services, since ads are how the content providers make money. by
> blocking ads you are consuming content and denying compensation for the
> provider. because of that, some sites request that ad blockers be
> disabled to view the content.

Again, what's common about you low IQ uneducated iKooks nospam is that
everything you can't do on iOS you consider illegal out of hand.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you _hate_ your beloved but crippled iOS lacks functionality.

>> he's
>> called youtube downloading fraud;
>
> nope. what i said was that downloading videos from youtube violates
> their terms of service, which is why google removes any app that can do
> it. obviously there are numerous ways around that, but that doesn't
> change the legality of it.

We discussed this case (and every case above) for years, nospam, where you
don't have the IQ nor education to comprehend that there is no need to
agree to ANYTHING on the public Google YouTube pages just to view content.

You lack the IQ and education to comprehend that the source code, for
example, to YouTube Vanced, LibreTube, NewPipe, Invidious, et. al, is
published src which Google can't do a single thing about since it's legal.
<https://i.postimg.cc/2yYK4N0W/newpipe02.jpg>

Why don't you iKooks ever tell the truth for once, nospam?
*You simply _hate_ that iOS can't do _any_ of that basic functionality*

>> he's called loading apps outside the app
>> store fraud;
>
> nope, nor does that make any sense. what i said was that sideloading
> brings additional risk.

From your own posts, nospam, the best you can figure out for sideloading
IPAs on a non-jailbroken iPhone is a *classic Apple clusterfuck* that
allows a user to run an app for a day or two before the certificate expires
on them.

Meanwhile, with Android, you don't even need to sideload to use a FOSS
Google Play Store client that scrapes the EXACT same APKs that are on the
Google Play Store repository, along with plenty of other reputable open
source repositories (such as Auroa Droid scrapes, for example).
<http://auroraoss.com>

>> he's called torrenting operating systems fraud;
>
> nope. what i said was the nearly all torrenting is for illicit content,
> such as porn, warez, movies, music, etc.

What goes along with your low IQ and almost complete and total lack of
education nospam is we discussed at length the Malibu court cases in
particular, years ago, and you completely forgot what we found out.

Never in the history of the United States has a torrented movie been found
to be illegal when the defendant disputed the case.

Plenty have given up and paid a fee to the plaintiff, but not a single case
(other than the Malibu cases which were later thrown out of court and the
lawyers disbarred) has there ever been for applying US Copyright Law to
torrented movies.

I suspect you don't even understand why...
*Which is my point about you low-IQ uneducated iKooks, nospam.*

Case law is too complicated for your iKook brain to figure out, nospam.

Everything you are too stupid to do you don't understand why or how anyone
else can do it, which is why you claim everything you can't do is "theft".

>> he's called
>> using a different carrier on your iPhone than AT&T fraud; etc.
>
> nope, nor does that make any sense. anyone can use any carrier they
> want, assuming the phone is unlocked. if the phone is locked, then
> they'll need to first unlock it to use a foreign carrier.

You don't remember anything we discussed nospam years ago when I first
jailbroke an iPhone in order to get the AT&T iPhone to work on T-Mobile.

This is in keeping with my assessment that your IQ is low, nospam.

You can't remember your own conversations where you claimed jailbreaking a
phone in order to use it on another network was illegal.

> as usual, you are lying, and in this case, quite a bit. everything you
> said was bullshit.

The fact remains that everything you iKooks can't figure out how to do, you
claim is illegal or theft or fraud... even as you can't find even a single
US court case that backs up your claims.

What that means is either you don't own the IQ or education to understand
the complexities of the law, and, your entire belief system is imaginary.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you _hate_ the crippled iPhone lacks the most basic of functionality.

[Alan]

On 2022-08-02 10:32, nospam wrote:
> In article <tcbi45$1jbjk$1...@dont-email.me>, AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
>> pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> technically, it's theft of services, since ads are how they make money.
>
> realistically, nobody will care, although some sites will refuse to
> display any content if they detect ad blocking of any sort.
>
>> I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
>> limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> as above, it's technically theft of services and realistically, nobody
> will care, although some sites make it a significant effort (more than
> just tossing cookies).

I would argue that neither is fraud.

A website that serves content is not entitled to leave data on my
computer without my permission, and I am certainly allowed to remove
that data whenever I chooose.

>
>> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
>> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> if the popup to sign up is a requirement to continue and view content,
> then it's a paywall, same as the newspaper subscription you just asked
> about. if it's just a request but you can click away and continue, then
> blocking it is probably fine.

So if you can click directly, it's fine, but if you have to use a piece
of software to choose which data you view, it's not.

The Atlantic has a pop-up that covers the page, but using the Reader
function of Safari allows me to read the article anyway.

Is that "theft of services?

[nospam]

In article <tcboh0$1kr1t$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> >> I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
> >> pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
> >>
> >> Is this a fraud or theft?
> >
> > technically, it's theft of services, since ads are how they make money.
> >
> > realistically, nobody will care, although some sites will refuse to
> > display any content if they detect ad blocking of any sort.
> >
> >> I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
> >> limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
> >

> > as above, it's technically theft of services and realistically, nobody
> > will care, although some sites make it a significant effort (more than
> > just tossing cookies).
>
> I would argue that neither is fraud.

correct. neither is fraud.

> A website that serves content is not entitled to leave data on my
> computer without my permission, and I am certainly allowed to remove
> that data whenever I chooose.

you gave it permission to leave data on your computer by choosing to
not block cookies.

> >> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
> >> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
> >>
> >> Is this a fraud or theft?
> >
> > if the popup to sign up is a requirement to continue and view content,
> > then it's a paywall, same as the newspaper subscription you just asked
> > about. if it's just a request but you can click away and continue, then
> > blocking it is probably fine.
>
> So if you can click directly, it's fine, but if you have to use a piece
> of software to choose which data you view, it's not.

not necessarily.

> The Atlantic has a pop-up that covers the page, but using the Reader
> function of Safari allows me to read the article anyway.
>
> Is that "theft of services?

what does the terms of service of the website say?

[nospam]

In article <tcbobo$o1m$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Everything you can't do on iOS, you call "illegal" nospam.

false. why do you lie?

>
> I don't know why.

that much is clear.

> The reason I spoof my GPS location is for privacy.

what you fail to understand is that it doesn't accomplish that task,
and in fact, it does the *opposite*.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
>> pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> technically, it's theft of services, since ads are how they make money.

For years, everything you state is "theft" has a common theme, nospam:
a. You don't own the IQ nor education to comprehend simple case law, and,
b. You don't own the IQ nor education to figure a way around it, nospam.

> realistically, nobody will care, although some sites will refuse to
> display any content if they detect ad blocking of any sort.

Pretty much what I use the web for is news and looking up functionality.
Any web site that puts hurdles to block that process, I simply skip.

However, what's _different_ about me is I'm not forced to use safari.
Nor am I forced to use the pointedly inferior stone age web kit browsers.

I can use the Tor Browser, for example.
You can't.

The strong anonymity of the Tor Browser is on all platforms _except_ iOS.

>> I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
>> limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> as above, it's technically theft of services and realistically, nobody
> will care, although some sites make it a significant effort (more than
> just tossing cookies).

The reason you claim it's illegal is you can't figure out how to do it.
Worse...

You claim that it's "theft of services" because you don't own the IQ or
education to understand the basic tenets of United States common law.

>> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
>> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> if the popup to sign up is a requirement to continue and view content,
> then it's a paywall, same as the newspaper subscription you just asked
> about. if it's just a request but you can click away and continue, then
> blocking it is probably fine.

Find a single case in the history of the United States, nospam, where the
defendant has been found guilty for simply using a different viewing client
than whatever clients that the newspaper company wrote their code for.

Find just one.

>> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
>>
>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> legally it's copyright infringement, which is informally and often
> called theft, despite being incorrect.

In order to be called "theft", you have to find a law that was broken in
the United States, and the fact you can't find even a _single_ case of
copyright law convictions for torrenting movies, means that it's not theft.

Interestingly, the _reason_ movie torrenting has zero convictions is likely
beyond your low IQ and lack of education; but that reason has a lot to do
with legal definitions as currently defined in US copyright law.

>
>> IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...
>>
>> (BTW I'm going by the dictionary, not legal definition.)
>
> if you're not going by the legal definitions, then it's theft.

The legal definition is the only one that matters, nospam.

What you have been doing for years is declaring every functionality that
you can't figure out how to do on the crippled iOS platform, theft.
a. Torrenting files
b. Call recording
c. Video downloading
d. Changing carriers
e. GPS spoofing
etc.
--
I have only two goals on the Apple newsgroups, the first is to learn from
and teach others, while the second is to show the iKooks for what they are.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Everything you can't do on iOS, you call "illegal" nospam.
>
> false. why do you lie?

For years, nospam, you've been claiming that anything you can't do on iOS
must be illegal... otherwise why can everyone else do it, but iOS users?

Note: Even the Mac does most of this stuff like Torrenting & Tor Browsers.
*It's just the stone-age iOS platform that is functionally crippled*

>> I don't know why.
>
> that much is clear.

It's a figure of speech because each time I say I don't know why, I provide
my assessment of why you claim everything you can't figure out how to do is
illegal.

Essentially, you iKooks are not like normal people.
You're more like those who vehemently claim the earth is flat.

There is no amount of reason that can change your mind because you have a
low IQ (which can't be solved) and you lack the education to understand US
case law.

*Hence, everything you can't figure out how to do, you say is illegal.*

>
>> The reason I spoof my GPS location is for privacy.
>
> what you fail to understand is that it doesn't accomplish that task,
> and in fact, it does the *opposite*.

You "say" that without any shred of proof, nospam.
No adult does that.

At least not any adult that owns an IQ that approaches that of normal.
This is one way I know you completely lack any formal education nospam.

An educated person would form a belief system underlain by at least 1 fact.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> I would argue that neither is fraud.
>
> correct. neither is fraud.

Given the iKooks own a low IQ and no education in case law... I repeat:

The legal definition of fraud _always_ contains a set of from 3 to about 9
conditions, *_all_ of which must be met* for a conviction to be upheld.

It's likewise for copyright law, where, in some cases, Google _legally_
publishes entire books on the Internet for public use...

What low IQ ill-educated iKooks don't realize is this basic legal fact:
*Every tenet must be met for it to be considered illegal*

Not just one.

>> A website that serves content is not entitled to leave data on my
>> computer without my permission, and I am certainly allowed to remove
>> that data whenever I chooose.
>
> you gave it permission to leave data on your computer by choosing to
> not block cookies.

You actually believe that, which is why I claim:
a. You iKooks have a low IQ
b. And no education in case law
c. Such that you claim everything you can't do, to be illegal.

>>>> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
>>>> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>>>
>>> if the popup to sign up is a requirement to continue and view content,
>>> then it's a paywall, same as the newspaper subscription you just asked
>>> about. if it's just a request but you can click away and continue, then
>>> blocking it is probably fine.
>>
>> So if you can click directly, it's fine, but if you have to use a piece
>> of software to choose which data you view, it's not.
>
> not necessarily.

Where did you iKooks get your law degree from?

The common theme here is everything you can't figure out how to do, you
iKooks call illegal (simply because you can't do it on the iOS platform).

Meanwhile, everyone else on every other platform (including the Mac!)
can easily do what is only difficult to do on the crippled iOS platform.

>> The Atlantic has a pop-up that covers the page, but using the Reader
>> function of Safari allows me to read the article anyway.
>>
>> Is that "theft of services?
>
> what does the terms of service of the website say?

On VPN, with an additional proxy, I just went to the Atlantic web page:
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/>

I clicked on what appears to be the cover story:
�<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/07/light-noise-pollution-animal-sensory-impact/638446/>

I didn't need to agree to _anything_ that I could see, and to prove it,
below is the full text (it's just a select-all though) of what I read.

Did I break the law?

==== < cut here for what I just read as the cover story > ====

SKIP TO CONTENTSite Navigation


Popular
Latest
Sign In
Subscribe
July/August 2022 Issue
EXPLORE
SCIENCE
HOW ANIMALS PERCEIVE THE WORLD
Every creature lives within its own sensory bubble, but only humans have
the capacity to appreciate the experiences of other species. What we've
learned is astounding.

By Ed Yong
Photographs by Shayan Asgharnia
black and white photograph of an eight-inch-tall eastern screech owl
Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic
JUNE 13, 2022
This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which
our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic, Monday through
Friday. Sign up for it here.

Within the 310,000 acres of Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park, one of the
largest parking lots is in the village of Colter Bay. Beyond the lot's far
edge, nestled among some trees, is a foul-smelling sewage-pumping station
that Jesse Barber, a sensory ecologist at Boise State University, calls the
Shiterator. On this particular night, sitting quietly within a crevice
beneath the building's metal awning and illuminated by Barber's flashlight,
is a little brown bat. A white device the size of a rice grain is attached
to the bat's back. "That's the radio tag," Barber tells me. He'd previously
affixed it to the bat so that he could track its movements, and tonight he
has returned to tag a few more.

Magazine Cover image
Explore the July/August 2022 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

View More
From inside the Shiterator, I can hear the chirps of other roosting bats.
As the sun sets, they start to emerge. A few become entangled in the large
net Barber has strung between two trees. He frees a bat, and Hunter Cole,
one of his students, carefully examines it to check that it's healthy and
heavy enough to carry a tag. Once satisfied, Cole daubs a spot of surgical
cement between its shoulder blades and attaches the tiny device. "It's a
little bit of an art project, the tagging of a bat," Barber tells me. After
a few minutes, Cole places the bat on the trunk of the nearest tree. It
crawls upward and takes off, carrying $175 worth of radio equipment into
the woods.

I watch as the team examines another bat, which opens its mouth and exposes
its surprisingly long teeth. This isn't an aggressive display; it only
looks like one. The bat is unleashing a stream of short, ultrasonic pulses
from its mouth, which are too high-pitched for me to hear. Bats, however,
can hear ultrasound, and by listening for the returning echoes, they can
detect and locate objects around them.

Echolocation is the primary means through which most bats navigate and
hunt. Only two animal groups are known to have perfected the ability:
toothed whales (such as dolphins, orcas, and sperm whales) and bats.
Echolocation differs from human senses because it involves putting energy
into the environment. Eyes scan, noses sniff, and fingers press, but these
sense organs are always picking up stimuli that already exist in the wider
world. By contrast, an echolocating bat creates the stimulus that it later
detects. Echolocation is a way of tricking your surroundings into revealing
themselves. A bat says "Marco," and its surroundings can't help but say
"Polo."

Join us: Ed Yong and Clint Smith in conversation at Sixth and I

The basic process seems straightforward, but its details are extraordinary.
High-pitched sounds quickly lose energy in air, so bats must scream to make
calls that are strong enough to return audible echoes. To avoid deafening
themselves, bats contract the muscles in their ears in time with their
calls, desensitizing their hearing with every shout and restoring it in
time for the echo. Each echo provides a snapshot in time, so bats must
update their calls quickly to track fast-moving insects; fortunately, their
vocal muscles are the fastest known muscles in any mammal, releasing up to
200 pulses a second. A bat's nervous system is so sensitive that it can
detect differences in echo delay of just one- or two-millionths of a
second, which translates to a physical distance of less than a millimeter.
A bat thus gauges the distance to an insect with far more precision than
humans can.

Echolocation's main weakness is its short range: Some bats can detect small
moths from about six to nine yards away. But they can do so in darkness so
total that vision simply doesn't work. Even in pitch-blackness, bats can
skirt around branches and pluck minuscule insects from the sky. Of course,
bats are not the only animals that hunt nocturnally. In the Tetons, as I
watch Barber tagging bats, mosquitoes bite me through my shirt, attracted
by the smell of the carbon dioxide on my breath. While I itch, an owl flies
overhead, tracking its prey using a radar dish of stiff facial feathers
that funnel sound toward its ears. These creatures have all evolved senses
that allow them to thrive in the dark. But the dark is disappearing.

black and white photo of bat upside down with mouth open
A big brown bat's ability to echolocate allows it to thrive in the dark.
(Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
Barber is one of a growing number of sensory biologists who fear that
humans are polluting the world with too much light, to the detriment of
other species. Even here, in the middle of a national park, light from
human technology intrudes upon the darkness. It spews forth from the
headlights of passing vehicles, from the fluorescent bulbs of the visitor
center, and from the lampposts encircling the parked cars. "The parking lot
is lit up like a Walmart because no one thought about the implications for
wildlife," Barber says.

Many flying insects are fatally attracted to streetlights, mistaking them
for celestial lights and hovering below them until they succumb to
exhaustion. Some bats exploit their confusion, feasting on the disoriented
swarms. Other, slower-moving species, including the little brown bats that
Barber tagged, stay clear of the light, perhaps because it makes them
easier prey for owls. Lights reshape animal communities, drawing some in
and pushing others away, with consequences that are hard to predict.

Every animal is enclosed within its own sensory bubble, perceiving but a
tiny sliver of an immense world.
To determine the effect of light on the bats of Grand Teton, Barber
persuaded the National Park Service to let him try an unusual experiment.
In 2019, he refitted all 32 streetlights in the Colter Bay parking lot with
special bulbs that can change color. They can produce either white light,
which strongly affects the behavior of insects and bats, or red light,
which doesn't seem to. Every few days during my visit, Barber's team flips
their color. Funnel-shaped traps hanging below the lamps collect the
gathering insects, while radio transponders pick up the signals from the
tagged bats. These data should reveal how normal white lights affect the
local animals, and whether red lights can help rewild the night sky.

Cole gives me a little demonstration by flipping the lights to red. At
first, the parking lot looks disquietingly infernal, as if we have stepped
into a horror movie. But as my eyes adjust, the red hues feel less dramatic
and become almost pleasant. It is amazing how much we can still see. The
cars and the surrounding foliage are all visible. I look up and notice that
fewer insects seem to be gathered beneath the lamps. I look up even farther
and see the stripe of the Milky Way cutting across the sky. It's an
achingly beautiful sight, one I have never seen before in the Northern
Hemisphere.

Every animal is enclosed within its own sensory bubble, perceiving but a
tiny sliver of an immense world. There is a wonderful word for this sensory
bubble-Umwelt. It was defined and popularized by the Baltic German
zoologist Jakob von Uexküll in 1909. Umwelt comes from the German word for
"environment," but Uexküll didn't use it to refer to an animal's
surroundings. Instead, an Umwelt is specifically the part of those
surroundings that an animal can sense and experience-its perceptual world.
A tick, questing for mammalian blood, cares about body heat, the touch of
hair, and the odor of butyric acid that emanates from skin. It doesn't care
about other stimuli, and probably doesn't know that they exist. Every
Umwelt is limited; it just doesn't feel that way. Each one feels
all-encompassing to those who experience it. Our Umwelt is all we know, and
so we easily mistake it for all there is to know. This is an illusion that
every creature shares.

Read: An ingenious injection can create infrared vision

Humans, however, possess the unique capacity to appreciate the Umwelten of
other species, and through centuries of effort, we have learned much about
those sensory worlds. But in the time it took us to accumulate that
knowledge, we have radically remolded those worlds. Much of the devastation
that we have wrought is by now familiar. We have changed the climate and
acidified the oceans. We have shuffled wildlife across continents,
replacing indigenous species with invasive ones. We have instigated what
some scientists have called an era of "biological annihilation," comparable
to the five great mass-extinction events of prehistory. But we have also
filled the silence with noise and the night with light. This often ignored
phenomenon is called sensory pollution-human-made stimuli that interfere
with the senses of other species. By barraging different animals with
stimuli of our own making, we have forced them to live in our Umwelt. We
have distracted them from what they actually need to sense, drowned out the
cues they depend upon, and lured them into sensory traps. All of this is
capable of doing catastrophic damage.

2 black and white photos: a close-up view of a sea turtle's head; a
titmouse with head bowed and paws over eyes
A sea turtle's hatchlings can be diverted away from the sea by artificial
lights. For mice, human-made noise
can mask the sounds of predators. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
In 2001, the astronomer Pierantonio Cinzano and his colleagues created the
first global atlas of light pollution. They calculated that two-thirds of
the world's population lived in light-polluted areas, where the nights were
at least 10 percent brighter than natural darkness. About 40 percent of
humankind is permanently bathed in the equivalent of perpetual moonlight,
and about 25 percent constantly experiences an artificial twilight that
exceeds the illumination of a full moon. "'Night' never really comes for
them," the researchers wrote. In 2016, when the team updated the atlas, it
found that the problem had become even worse. By then, about 83 percent of
people-including more than 99 percent of Americans and Europeans-were under
light-polluted skies. More than a third of humanity, and almost 80 percent
of North Americans, can no longer see the Milky Way. "The thought of light
traveling billions of years from distant galaxies only to be washed out in
the last billionth of a second by the glow from the nearest strip mall
depresses me to no end," the visual ecologist Sönke Johnsen once wrote.

At Colter Bay, Cole flips the lights from red back to white and I wince.
The extra illumination feels harsh and unpleasant. The stars seem fainter
now. Sensory pollution is the pollution of disconnection. It detaches us
from the cosmos. It drowns out the stimuli that link animals to their
surroundings and to one another. In making the planet brighter and louder,
we have endangered sensory environments for countless species in ways that
are less viscerally galling than clear-cut rain forests and bleached coral
reefs but no less tragic. That must now change. We can still save the quiet
and preserve the dark.

Every year on September 11, the sky above New York City is pierced by two
columns of intense blue light. This annual art installation, known as
Tribute in Light, commemorates the terrorist attacks of 2001, with the
ascending beams standing in for the fallen Twin Towers. Each is produced by
44 xenon bulbs with 7,000-watt intensities. Their light can be seen from 60
miles away. From closer up, onlookers often notice small flecks, dancing
amid the beams like gentle flurries of snow. Those flecks are birds.
Thousands of them.


An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal The Hidden Realms Around UsED
YONG,RANDOM HOUSE
BUY BOOK
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission.
Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
This annual ritual unfortunately occurs during the autumn migratory season,
when billions of small songbirds undertake long flights through North
American skies. Navigating under cover of darkness, they fly in such large
numbers that they show up on radar. By analyzing meteorological radar
images, Benjamin Van Doren showed that Tribute in Light, across seven
nights of operation, waylaid about 1.1 million birds. The beams reach so
high that even at altitudes of several miles, passing birds are drawn into
them. Warblers and other small species congregate within the light at up to
150 times their normal density levels. They circle slowly, as if trapped in
an incorporeal cage. They call frequently and intensely. They occasionally
crash into nearby buildings.

Migrations are grueling affairs that push small birds to their
physiological limit. Even a night-long detour can sap their energy reserves
to fatal effect. So whenever 1,000 or more birds are caught within Tribute
in Light, the bulbs are turned off for 20 minutes to let the birds regain
their bearing. But that's just one source of light among many, and though
intense and vertical, it shines only once a year. At other times, light
pours out of sports stadiums and tourist attractions, oil rigs and office
buildings. It pushes back the dark and pulls in migrating birds.

In 1886, shortly after Thomas Edison commercialized the electric light
bulb, about 1,000 birds died after colliding with illuminated towers in
Decatur, Illinois. More than a century later, the environmental scientist
Travis Longcore and his colleagues calculated that almost 7 million birds
die each year in the United States and Canada after flying into
communication towers. The lights of those towers are meant to warn aircraft
pilots, but they also disrupt the orientation of nocturnal avian fliers,
which then veer into wires or each other. Many of these deaths could be
avoided simply by replacing steady lights with blinking ones.

"We too quickly forget that we don't perceive the world in the same way as
other species, and consequently, we ignore impacts that we shouldn't,"
Longcore tells me in his Los Angeles office. Our eyes are among the
sharpest in the animal kingdom, but their high resolution comes with the
cost of low sensitivity. Unlike most other mammals, our vision fails us at
night, so we crave more nocturnal illumination, not less.

Read: The dark side of light

The idea of light as a pollutant is jarring to us, but it becomes one when
it creeps into places where it doesn't belong. Widespread light at night is
a uniquely anthropogenic force. The daily and seasonal rhythms of bright
and dark remained largely inviolate throughout all of evolutionary time-a
4-billion-year streak that began to falter in the 19th century.

When sea-turtle hatchlings emerge from their nests, they crawl away from
the dark shapes of dune vegetation toward the brighter oceanic horizon. But
lit roads and beach resorts can steer them in the wrong direction, where
they are easily picked off by predators or squashed by vehicles. In Florida
alone, artificial lights kill baby turtles in the thousands every year.
They've wandered into a baseball game and, more horrifying, abandoned beach
fires. The caretaker of one property in Melbourne Beach found hundreds of
dead hatchlings piled beneath a single mercury-vapor lamp.

black and white photo of cricket
Female crickets struggle to find the best mates when noise pollution masks
the males' songs. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
Artificial lights can also fatally attract insects, contributing to their
alarming global declines. A single streetlamp can lure moths from 25 yards
away, and a well-lit road might as well be a prison. Many of the insects
that gather around streetlamps will likely be eaten or dead from exhaustion
by sunrise. Those that zoom toward vehicle headlights will probably be gone
even sooner. The consequences of these losses can ripple across ecosystems.
In 2014, as part of an experiment, the ecologist Eva Knop installed
streetlamps in seven Swiss meadows. After sunset, she prowled these fields
with night-vision goggles, peering into flowers to search for moths and
other pollinators. By comparing these sites to others that had been kept
dark, Knop showed that the illuminated flowers received 62 percent fewer
visits from pollinating insects. One plant produced 13 percent less fruit
even though it was visited by a day shift of bees and butterflies.

RECOMMENDED READING
Illustration of a person's profile shaped like the outline of the U.S.
What American Mental Health Care Is Missing
THOMAS INSEL
An illustration of a man being pulled on two sides by his sisters and wife
Dear Therapist: Why Can't My Wife Pretend to Like My Family?
LORI GOTTLIEB
The professional golfer Gary Woodland loses grip of his club during a
swing.
The Average Guy Who Spent 6,003 Hours Trying to Be a Professional Golfer
STEPHEN PHILLIPS
The presence of light isn't the only factor that matters; so does its
nature. Insects with aquatic larvae, such as mayflies and dragonflies, will
fruitlessly lay their eggs on wet roads, windows, and car roofs, because
these reflect horizontally polarized light in the same way bodies of water
do. Rapidly flickering light bulbs can cause headaches and other
neurological problems in humans, even though our eyes are usually too slow
to detect these changes; what, then, do they do to animals with faster
vision, like insects and small birds?

Colors matter, too. Red is better for bats and insects but can waylay
migrating birds. Yellow doesn't bother turtles or most insects but can
disrupt salamanders. No wavelength is perfect, Longcore says, but blue and
white are worst of all. Blue light interferes with body clocks and strongly
attracts insects. It is also easily scattered, increasing the spread of
light pollution. It is, however, cheap and efficient to produce. The new
generation of energy-efficient white LEDs contain a lot of blue light, and
the world might switch to them from traditional yellow-orange sodium
lights. In energy terms, that would be an environmental win. But it would
also increase the amount of global light pollution by two or three times.

From the April 2020 issue: Ed Yong on how we can save giraffes from
extinction

After talking with Longcore, I head home to Washington, D.C., on a red-eye
flight. As the plane takes off, I peer out the window at Los Angeles. The
twinkling grid of lights stirs the same primordial awe that comes from
watching a starry sky or a moonlit sea. But as the illuminated city recedes
beneath my window, that amazement is tinged with unease. Light pollution is
no longer just an urban problem. Light travels, encroaching even into
places that are otherwise untouched by human influence. The light from Los
Angeles reaches Death Valley, one of the largest national parks in the
United States, more than 150 miles away. True darkness is hard to find.

So is true silence.

It's a sunny April morning in Boulder, Colorado, and I've hiked up to a
rocky hillside, about 6,000 feet above sea level. The world feels wider
here, not just because of the panoramic view over conifer forests but also
because it is blissfully quiet. Away from urban ruckus, quieter sounds
become audible over greater distances. On the hillside, a chipmunk is
rustling. Grasshoppers snap their wings together as they fly. A woodpecker
pounds its beak against a nearby trunk. Wind rushes past. The longer I sit,
the more I seem to hear.

Two men puncture the tranquility. I can't see them, but they're somewhere
on the trail below, intent on broadcasting their opinions to all of
Colorado. Then I realize I can also hear faraway vehicles zooming along a
highway beyond the trees. Denver hums in the distance, an ambient backdrop
that I had all but blocked out. I notice the roaring engines of a plane
flying overhead. After my hike, I meet up with Kurt Fristrup, who says he's
been backpacking since the mid-1960s. In that time, aircraft emissions have
increased nearly sevenfold. "One of my favorite parlor tricks when friends
visit is to ask, at the end of the hike, if they heard any aircraft," he
tells me. "People will say they remember one or two. And I'll say there
were 23 jets and two helicopters."

Before he retired, Fristrup was a scientist at the National Park Service's
Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, a group that works to safeguard
(among other things) the United States' natural soundscapes. To protect
them, the team first had to map them, and sound, unlike light, can't be
detected by satellites. Fristrup and his colleagues spent years lugging
recording equipment to almost 500 sites around the country, capturing
nearly 1.5 million audio samples. They found that human activity doubles
the background-noise levels in 63 percent of protected spaces like national
parks, and increases them tenfold in 21 percent. In the latter places, "if
you could have heard something 100 feet away, now you can only hear it 10
feet away," Rachel Buxton, a former National Park Service research fellow,
told me. Aircraft and roads are the main culprits, but so are industries
like oil and gas extraction, mining, and forestry, which fill the air with
drilling, explosions, engine noises, and the thud of heavy tires. Even the
most heavily protected areas are under acoustic siege.

black and white photo of fluffy little bird with eyes and beak both wide
open
Busy roads may drown out the alarm calls of songbirds like the tufted
titmouse. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
In towns and cities, the problem is worse, and not just in the United
States. In 2005, two-thirds of Europeans were immersed in ambient noise
equivalent to perpetual rainfall. Such conditions are difficult for the
many animals that communicate through calls and songs. Scientists have
found that noisy neighborhoods in Leiden, in the Netherlands, compel great
tits to sing at higher frequencies so that their notes don't get masked by
the city's low-pitched hubbub. Nightingales in Berlin are forced to belt
out their tunes more loudly to be heard over the surrounding din. Urban and
industrial noise can also change the timing of birds' songs, suppress the
complexity of their calls, and prevent them from finding mates. Noise
pollution masks not only the sounds that animals deliberately make but also
the "web of unintended sounds that ties communities together," Fristrup
says. He means the gentle rustles that tell owls where their prey is, or
the faint flaps that warn mice about impending doom.

In 2012, Jesse Barber and his colleagues Heidi Ware Carlisle and
Christopher McClure built a phantom road. On a ridge in Idaho that acts as
a stopover for migrating birds, the team set up a half-mile corridor of
speakers that played looped recordings of passing cars. A third of the
usual birds stayed away. Many of those that didn't paid a price for
persisting. With tires and horns drowning out the sounds of predators, the
birds spent more time looking for danger and less time looking for food.
They put on less weight and were weaker during their arduous migrations.
The phantom-road experiment was pivotal in showing that wildlife could be
deterred by noise and noise alone, detached from the sight of vehicles or
the stench of exhaust. Hundreds of studies have come to similar
conclusions. In noisy conditions, prairie dogs spend more time underground.
Owls flub their attacks. Parasitic Ormia flies struggle to find their
cricket hosts.

Sounds can travel over long distances, at all times of day, and through
solid obstacles. These qualities make them excellent stimuli for animals
but also pollutants par excellence. Noise can degrade habitats that look
idyllic and make otherwise livable places unlivable. And where will animals
go? In 2003, 83 percent of the contiguous United States lay within about a
kilometer of a road.

Even the seas can't offer silence. Although Jacques Cousteau once described
the ocean as a silent world, it is anything but. It teems with the sounds
of breaking waves and blowing winds, bubbling hydrothermal vents and
calving icebergs, all of which carry farther and travel faster underwater
than in air. Marine animals are noisy, too. Whales sing, toadfish hum, cod
grunt, and bearded seals trill. Thousands of snapping shrimp, which stun
passing fish with the shock waves produced by their large claws, fill coral
reefs with sounds similar to sizzling bacon or Rice Krispies popping in
milk. Some of this soundscape has been muted as humans have netted, hooked,
and harpooned the oceans' residents. Other natural noises have been drowned
out by the ones we added: the scrapes of nets that trawl the seafloor; the
staccato beats of seismic charges used to scout for oil and gas; the pings
of military sonar; and, as a ubiquitous backing track for all this
commotion, the sounds of ships.

Read: These animals are feasting on the ruins of an extinct world

"Think about where your shoes come from," the marine-mammal expert John
Hildebrand tells me. I look; unsurprisingly, the answer is China. Some
tanker carried my shoes across the Pacific, leaving behind a wake of sound
that radiated for miles. From 1945 to 2008, the global shipping fleet more
than tripled, and began moving 10 times more cargo at higher speeds. And in
the past 50 years, shipping vessels have multiplied the levels of
low-frequency noise in the oceans 32-fold-a 15-decibel increase over levels
that Hildebrand suspects were already 10 to 15 decibels louder than in
pre-propeller seas. Because giant whales can live for a century or more,
there are likely whales alive today that have personally experienced this
growing underwater racket and now can hear only a small fraction of their
former range. As ships pass in the night, humpback whales stop singing,
orcas stop foraging, and right whales become stressed. Crabs stop feeding,
cuttlefish change colors, damselfish are more easily caught. "If I said
that I'm going to increase the noise level in your office by 30 decibels,
OSHA would come in and say you'd need to wear earplugs," Hildebrand tells
me. "We're conducting an experiment on marine animals by exposing them to
these high levels of noise, and it's not an experiment we'd allow to be
conducted on ourselves."

Because of the way we have upended the worlds of other animals, senses that
have served their owners well for millions of years are now liabilities.
Smooth vertical surfaces, which don't exist in nature, return echoes that
sound like open air; perhaps that's why bats so often crash into windows.
Dimethyl sulfide, the seaweedy-smelling chemical that once reliably guided
seabirds to food, now also guides them to the millions of tons of plastic
waste that humans have dumped into the oceans; perhaps that's one reason an
estimated 90 percent of seabirds eventually swallow plastic. Manatees can
detect the currents produced by objects moving in the water with
whiskerlike hairs found all over their body, but not with enough notice to
avoid a loud, fast-moving speedboat; boat collisions are responsible for at
least a fifth of deaths among Florida's manatees. Odorants in river water
can guide salmon back to their stream of birth, but not if pesticides in
that same water blunt their sense of smell. Weak electric fields at the
bottom of the sea can guide sharks to buried prey, but also to high-voltage
cables.

black and white close-up photo of underside of manatee's head showing its
whiskers, with mouth open
Manatee whiskers can detect currents in the water, but not quickly enough
to dodge loud, fast boats. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
Some animals have come to tolerate the sights and sounds of modernity.
Others even flourish among them. Some urban moths have evolved to become
less attracted to light. Some urban spiders have gone in the opposite
direction, spinning webs beneath streetlights and feasting on the attracted
insects. In some Panama towns, nighttime lights drive frog-eating bats
away, allowing male túngara frogs to load their songs with sexy flourishes
that would normally attract predators as well as mates. Animals can adapt,
by changing their behavior over an individual lifetime and by evolving new
behaviors over many generations.

Read: Why some moths are evolving to avoid artificial light

But adaptation is not always possible. Species that mature and breed slowly
can't evolve quickly enough to keep pace with levels of light and noise
pollution that double every few decades. Creatures that have already been
confined to narrow corners of shrinking habitats can't just up and leave.
Those that rely on specialized senses can't just retune their entire
Umwelt.

With every creature that vanishes, we lose a way of interpreting the world.
Our influence is not inherently destructive, but it is often homogenizing.
In pushing out species that cannot abide our sensory onslaughts, we leave
behind smaller and less diverse communities. And beyond polluting the world
with unwanted sensory stimuli, we're also removing natural stimuli that
animals have come to depend on, flattening the undulating sensescapes that
have generated the wondrous variety of animal Umwelten.

Consider Lake Victoria, in East Africa. It is home to more than 500 species
of cichlid fish that are found nowhere else. That extraordinary diversity
arose partly because of light. In deeper parts of the lake, light tends to
be yellow or orange, while blue is more plentiful in shallower waters.
These differences affected the eyes of the local cichlids and, in turn,
their mating choices. The evolutionary biologist Ole Seehausen found that
female cichlids from deeper waters prefer redder males, while those in the
shallows are drawn to bluer ones. These diverging penchants acted like
physical barriers, splitting the cichlids into differently colored forms.
Diversity in light helped create diversity in vision, in color, and in
species. But over the past century, runoff from farms, mines, and sewage
filled the lake with nutrients that spurred the growth of clouding, choking
algae. The old light gradients flattened in some places, the cichlids'
colors and visual proclivities no longer mattered, and the number of
species collapsed. By turning off the light in the lake, humans also
switched off the sensory engine of diversity, contributing to what
Seehausen has called "the fastest large-scale extinction event ever
observed."

As those species go extinct, so too do their Umwelten. With every creature
that vanishes, we lose a way of interpreting the world. Our sensory bubbles
shield us from the knowledge of those losses. But they don't protect us
from the consequences. In the woodlands of New Mexico, the ecologists
Clinton Francis and Catherine Ortega found that the Woodhouse's scrub-jay
avoids the noise of compressors used in extracting natural gas. The
scrub-jay spreads the seeds of piñon pine trees, and a single bird can bury
thousands of pine seeds a year. They are so important to the forests that,
in quiet areas where they still thrive, pine seedlings are four times more
common than in noisy areas they have abandoned, Francis and colleagues
found in a later study.

2 black and white photos: a clown fish; a prairie dog holding up its paws
with very long claws next to its face
Left: As babies, clown fish use sounds to find their way to the safety of a
coral reef. Right: To avoid excessive noise, prairie dogs spend more time
underground. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
Piñon pines are the foundation of the ecosystem around them-a single
species that provides food and shelter for hundreds of others, including
Indigenous Americans. To lose three-quarters of them would be disastrous.
And because they grow slowly, "noise might have hundred-plus-year
consequences for the entire ecosystem," Francis tells me.

A better understanding of other creatures' senses can show us how we're
defiling the natural world-and can also point to ways of saving it. In
2016, the marine biologist Tim Lamont (formerly Tim Gordon) traveled to
Australia's Great Barrier Reef to begin work for his doctorate. Lamont
should have spent months swimming amid the corals' vivid splendor. Instead,
a heat wave had forced the corals to expel the symbiotic algae that give
them nutrients and colors. Without these partners, the corals starved and
whitened in the worst bleaching event on record, and the first of several
to come. Snorkeling through the rubble, Lamont found that the reefs had
been not only bleached but also silenced. Snapping shrimp no longer
snapped. Parrotfish no longer crunched. Those sounds normally help guide
baby fish back to the reef after their first vulnerable months out at sea.
Soundless reefs were much less attractive.

Lamont feared that if fish avoided the degraded reefs, the seaweed they
normally eat would run amok, overgrowing the bleached corals and preventing
them from rebounding. He and his colleagues set up loudspeakers that
continuously played recordings of healthy reefs over patches of coral
rubble. The team would dive every few days to survey the local animals.
After 40 days, he ran the numbers and saw that the acoustically enriched
reefs had twice as many young fish as silent ones and 50 percent more
species. They had not only been attracted by the sounds but stayed and
formed a community. "It was a lovely experiment to do," Lamont says. It
showed what conservationists can accomplish by "seeing the world through
the perceptions of the animals you're trying to protect."

From the July 2019 issue: The last of its kind

Lamont's experiment was possible only because the team managed to record
the sounds of the healthy reefs before they were bleached. Natural
sensescapes still exist. There is still time to preserve and restore them
before the last echo of the last reef fades into memory. And in most cases,
the work ahead of us is considerably simpler. Instead of adding stimuli
that we have removed, we can simply remove those that we added. Radioactive
waste can take millennia to degrade. Persistent chemicals like the
pesticide DDT can thread through the bodies of animals long after they are
banned. Plastics will continue to despoil the oceans even if all plastic
production halts tomorrow. But light pollution ceases as soon as lights are
turned off. Noise pollution abates once engines and propellers wind down.
Sensory pollution is an ecological gimme-a rare example of a planetary
problem that can be immediately and effectively addressed. And in the
spring of 2020, the world did unknowingly address it.

black and white 3/4 photo of underside of salamander with its front right
leg by its eye and mouth and front left leg downalong its side
The body clock of the barred tiger salamander is disrupted by artificial
light at night. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
As the coronavirus spread, public spaces closed. Flights were grounded.
Cars stayed parked. Cruise ships stayed docked. About 4.5 billion
people-almost three-fifths of the world's population-were told or
encouraged to stay home. As a result, many places became substantially
darker and quieter. With fewer planes and cars on the move, the night skies
around Berlin were half as bright as normal. Alaska's Glacier Bay, a
sanctuary for humpback whales, was half as loud as the previous year, as
were cities and rural areas throughout California, New York, Florida, and
Texas. Sounds that would normally be muffled became clearer. City dwellers
around the world suddenly noticed singing birds.

Read: Artificial lights tell the story of the pandemic

In a multitude of ways, the pandemic showed that sensory pollution can be
reduced if people are sufficiently motivated-and such reductions are
possible without the debilitating consequences of a global lockdown. In the
summer of 2007, Kurt Fristrup and his National Park Service colleagues did
a simple experiment at Muir Woods National Monument, in California. On a
random schedule, they stuck up signs that declared one of the most popular
parts of the park a quiet zone and encouraged visitors to silence their
phones and lower their voices. These simple steps, with no accompanying
enforcement, reduced the noise levels in the park by three decibels,
equivalent to 1,200 fewer visitors.

To perceive the world through others' senses is to find splendor in
familiarity, and the sacred in the mundane.
To truly make a dent in sensory pollution, bigger steps are needed. Lights
can be dimmed or switched off when buildings and streets are not in use.
They can be shielded so that they stop shining above the horizon. LEDs can
be changed from blue or white to red. Quiet pavements with porous surfaces
can absorb the noise from passing vehicles. Sound-absorbing barriers,
including berms on land and air-bubble curtains in the water, can soften
the din of traffic and industry. Vehicles can be diverted from important
areas of wilderness, or they can be forced to slow down: In 2007, when
commercial ships in the Mediterranean began slowing down by just 12
percent, which saves fuel and reduces emissions, they produced half as much
noise. Such vessels can also be fitted with quieter hulls and propellers,
which are already used to muffle military ships (and would make commercial
ones more fuel-efficient).

We could regulate industries causing sensory pollution, but there's not
enough societal will. "Plastic pollution in the sea looks hideous and
everyone is worried, but noise pollution in the sea is something we don't
experience so directly, so no one's up in arms about it," Lamont says. And
as we desecrate sensory environments, we grow accustomed to the results.
Our blinding, blaring world becomes normal, and pristine wilderness feels
more distant.

But the majesty of nature is not restricted to canyons and mountains. It
can be found in the wilds of perception-the sensory spaces that lie outside
our Umwelt and within those of other animals. To perceive the world through
others' senses is to find splendor in familiarity, and the sacred in the
mundane. Wonders exist in a backyard garden, where bees take the measure of
a flower's electric fields, leafhoppers send vibrational melodies through
the stems of plants, and birds behold the hidden palettes of ultraviolet
colors on their flock-mates' feathers. Wilderness is not distant. We are
continually immersed in it. It is there for us to imagine, to savor, and to
protect.

black and white close-up photo of face of white barn owl
Barn owls track prey using stiff facial feathers that funnel sound toward
their ears. (Shayan Asgharnia for The Atlantic)
In 1934, after considering the senses of ticks, dogs, jackdaws, and wasps,
Jakob von Uexküll wrote about the Umwelt of the astronomer. "Through
gigantic optical aids," he wrote, this unique creature has eyes that "are
capable of penetrating outer space as far as the most distant stars. In its
Umwelt, suns and planets circle at a solemn pace." The tools of astronomy
can capture stimuli that no animal can naturally sense-X-rays, radio waves,
gravitational waves from colliding black holes. They extend the human
Umwelt across the universe and back to its very beginning. The tools of
biologists are more modest in scale, but they, too, offer a glimpse into
the infinite. Scientists have used night-vision goggles to show that
nocturnal bees can see in extreme darkness, clip-on microphones to
eavesdrop on the vibrational songs of leafhoppers, and electrodes to listen
in on the pulses of electric fish. With microscopes, cameras, speakers,
satellites, and recorders, people have explored other sensory worlds. We
have used technology to make the invisible visible and the inaudible
audible.

No creature could possibly sense everything, and no creature needs to.
Evolving according to their owner's needs, the senses sort through an
infinity of stimuli, allowing through only what is relevant. To learn about
the rest is a choice. The ability to dip into other Umwelten is our
greatest sensory skill. A moth will never know what a zebra finch hears in
its song, a zebra finch will never feel the electric buzz of a black ghost
knifefish, a knifefish will never see through the eyes of a mantis shrimp,
a mantis shrimp will never smell the way a dog can, and a dog will never
understand what it is like to be a bat. We will never fully do any of these
things either, but we are the only animal that can try. Through patient
observation, through the technologies at our disposal, through the
scientific method, and, above all else, through our curiosity and
imagination, we can try to step into perspectives outside our own. This is
a profound gift, which comes with a heavy responsibility. As the only
species that can come close to understanding other Umwelten, but also the
species most responsible for destroying those sensory realms, it falls on
us to marshal all of our empathy and ingenuity to protect other creatures,
and their unique ways of experiencing our shared world.

This article has been adapted from Ed Yong's latest book, An Immense World:
How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us. It appears in the
July/August 2022 print edition with the headline "Our Blinding, Blaring
World."

An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal The Hidden Realms Around UsED
YONG, RANDOM HOUSE
BUY BOOK

[sms]

On 8/2/2022 9:07 AM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
> pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

Neither.

> I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
> limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

Neither.

> I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
> demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

Neither.

> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
>
> Is this a fraud or theft?

Theft.

> IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...

Not true.

Using a mock location to watch free programming from another geographic
areas is neither fraud nor theft. The provider is certainly able to put
their programming behind a paywall if they don't want out of area
viewers. But since that would reduce the number of viewers, they don't
want to do that since there's a financial benefit to them by increasing
the number of viewers. They couldn't care less if someone from another
area wants to watch.

One thing that Xfinity now does is to prevent streaming of some content
by only allowing it via broadband through the registered cable modem.
This prevents password sharing. But it's annoying because if you're not
at home you can't watch that content, that you've paid for, on your
phone or tablet.

[nospam]

In article <tcbt92$2nroh$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> The legal definition of fraud _always_ contains a set of from 3 to about 9
> conditions, *_all_ of which must be met* for a conviction to be upheld.

it's a lot more complicated than that.

> It's likewise for copyright law, where, in some cases, Google _legally_
> publishes entire books on the Internet for public use...

'in some cases', and it was litigated. google also limits the number of
pages that can be viewed.

>
> Did I break the law?

yes, by your own admission.

[nospam]

In article <tcbsaj$f9s$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> Everything you can't do on iOS, you call "illegal" nospam.
> >
> > false. why do you lie?
>
> For years, nospam, you've been claiming that anything you can't do on iOS
> must be illegal... otherwise why can everyone else do it, but iOS users?

you continue to lie. i never said anything close to that.

>
> An educated person would form a belief system underlain by at least 1 fact.

given that you do not have any facts, then according to your own
metric, what does that make you?

[nospam]

In article <tcdtla$28lu6$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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


> > I can get can get rid of and/or stop annoying motion ads on most web
> > pages by either disabling JavaScript or using an add-on like Tranquility.
> >
> > Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> Neither.
>
> > I can disable some newspaper's articles-per-month without a subscription
> > limit and read all I want just by just periodically erasing their cookies.
> >
> > Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> Neither.
>
> > I can often disable a site's complete page covering pop-up subscription
> > demand by using Tranquility and read the article underneath.
> >
> > Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> Neither.

all wrong

> > I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
> >
> > Is this a fraud or theft?
>
> Theft.

nope. it's copyright infringement.

> > IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...
>
> Not true.

it is true.

> Using a mock location to watch free programming from another geographic
> areas is neither fraud nor theft.

falsifying credentials to obtain goods or services is fraud.

> The provider is certainly able to put
> their programming behind a paywall if they don't want out of area
> viewers.

irrelevant.

> But since that would reduce the number of viewers, they don't
> want to do that since there's a financial benefit to them by increasing
> the number of viewers. They couldn't care less if someone from another
> area wants to watch.

actually, they do, mainly due to licensing requirements.

this is most commonly seen with sports.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> The legal definition of fraud _always_ contains a set of from 3 to about 9
>> conditions, *_all_ of which must be met* for a conviction to be upheld.
>
> it's a lot more complicated than that.

This is an important post as it exemplifies how nospam is the "smartest" of
the dozen or so iKooks who infest this Apple newsgroup.

I have to appreciate that you said that as I giggled like a schoolgirl when
I read that you, of all people, say something is more complicated than what
it appears to be.

HINT: Almost everything in law and marketing is more complicated than it
appears to be, just as it is in science & engineering (and most subjects).

Unfortunately...

You don't own the IQ nor the education to comprehend complexity, nospam.
That's two of the three reasons why you're a flat-earth type iKook, nospam.

a. Admittedly, your IQ is the _highest_ of all the iKooks;
b. But it's still well below normal.

And you have absolutely zero education in marketing, nospam.
Which is why you fall for every Apple marketing trick in the book.

>> It's likewise for copyright law, where, in some cases, Google _legally_
>> publishes entire books on the Internet for public use...
>
> 'in some cases', and it was litigated. google also limits the number of
> pages that can be viewed.

This is one indicator that you are more intelligent than the rest of the
iKooks, as it's doubtful Alan Baker or Jolly Roger or Lewis or Chris or
even Alan Browne (who is the second-smartest of the iKooks) would have
caught that level of detail in the Google court case (which Google won).

If you only had a score more points on IQ, nospam, you'd approach normal,
given _none_ of the others comprehend a single tenet of US fair use law.

Kudos to you for comprehending that Google doesn't serve the entire book at
the same time, nor to the same IP address (but note you can _easily_ obtain
the entire book if you're a bit clever about changing up your identifiers).

>> Did I break the law?
>
> yes, by your own admission.

What I do is _study_ you very strange iKooks, much like I would study
anyone who would claim the earth is flat (which is similar to iKooks).

All of you have three things in common:
a. Low IQ
b. No education
c. Your ego is tied to your decision to pay through the nose for falling
for Apple's marketing gimiicks, such that you feel you must jusify
the huge expense you paid for Apple products, where you feel you
must justify that inordinately expensive decision at all costs.

Otherwise, why do you iKooks gloat over how much Apple makes off of you?
(Any normal person would be ashamed they were fleeced but not iKooks.)
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, in this case, is a summary of what makes an iKook so strange.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> For years, nospam, you've been claiming that anything you can't do on iOS
>> must be illegal... otherwise why can everyone else do it, but iOS users?
>
> you continue to lie. i never said anything close to that.

What's consistent with you iKooks, nospam, is you don't remember your own
desperate excuses for the lack of functionality of the iOS platform.

For example, you claimed that automatic call recording was illegal.
And you claimed that torrenting was illegal.

For you to deny those claims that you've made so many times is what people
like you do who are _desperate_ to deny all that you _hate_ about Apple.

In this very thread you told Steve (via his response to Joerg) that him
falsifying his GPS location to watch TV was "fraud", did you not?

Yet, the real reason you made those desperate claims was simply that you
can't do them on the iOS platform like we can on all other platforms.

>> An educated person would form a belief system underlain by at least 1 fact.
>
> given that you do not have any facts, then according to your own
> metric, what does that make you?

The difference between you and me, nospam, is you forget all facts you
simply don't like.

While I readily assess you as the smartest of all the flat-earth type
iKooks (Alan Browne being a distant second), you still exhibit the same
lack-of-facts traits as the dumbest of them, most notably Alan Baker, where
you just proved yet again that you can't comprehend that any fact exists
which is outside your imaginary belief system.

For example, long ago we discussed with Alan Baker for scores of posts
(when I didn't have him plonked) that Apple acceoted criminal guilt for
throttling, and then, onkly a short while ago I saw in someone's resposne
to Alan, that he forgot all about those facts - just like you forget all
facts you simply don't like.

--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
much of which are facts that only someone like nospam would dispute.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
>>>
>>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>>
>> Theft.
>
> nope. it's copyright infringement.

Every single time nospam denies facts like a flat earther does, he shows
his true colors... <https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html>

It's tiresome to hear low-IQ no-education idiots like nospam claim that
merely downloading stuff is "copyright infringement" when Google supplies
_entire_ books (random pages obfuscated) and that's NOT copyright
infringement, nor are a billion other "fair use" downloads of copyrighted
material. <https://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use>

The problem with people like nospam is...
a. They don't own the IQ to comprehend copyright law contains tenets
b. All of which must exist for it to be considered copyright infringement
<https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html>

In summary, it's no longer shocking that these low-IQ no-education iKooks
can't comprehend something even as simple as fair use copyright tenets.

>
>>> IMO they likely all are in varying degrees...
>>
>> Not true.
>
> it is true.

It's no longer shocking why I lump people like nospam with only a score of
IQ points below normal with those like Alan Baker with scores below normal.

Every single thing nospam claims is easily shown to be completely false.

The question is why?

The answer seems to be that nospam is _desperate_ to claim that everything
he can't figure out how to do on iOS (but not on the mac!) is illegal.

>> Using a mock location to watch free programming from another geographic
>> areas is neither fraud nor theft.
>
> falsifying credentials to obtain goods or services is fraud.

As with Alan Baker and the rest of the iKooks, it is no longer shocking
that you can tell nospam a hundred times that fraud ALWAYS requires
MULTIPLE tenets to exist, only one of which is obtaining the goods or
services, and yet, he just doesn't own the IQ nor education to comprehend.
<https://www.robertdmitchell.com/common-law-fraud>

>> The provider is certainly able to put
>> their programming behind a paywall if they don't want out of area
>> viewers.
>
> irrelevant.

An _adult_ would comprehend what Steve's argument is.
Not an iKook.

The only thing an iKook like nospam cares about is to defend the huge
crippling flaws in the iOS platform to the point of declaring that every
functionality that nospam _hates_ doesn't exist on iOS must be illegal.

>> But since that would reduce the number of viewers, they don't
>> want to do that since there's a financial benefit to them by increasing
>> the number of viewers. They couldn't care less if someone from another
>> area wants to watch.
>
> actually, they do, mainly due to licensing requirements.
> this is most commonly seen with sports.

Fraud requires a whole bunch of things to exist for it to be fraud.
Just watching the sports events in and of itself is not fraud.

It's no longer surprising that nospam can't comprehend that fact.

All the iKooks suffer from the same three debilitations...
1. They have a low IQ
2. None have any education in legal matters
3. All defend every flaw in Apple products to the death
--

Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information

which, in this case, is to prove that everything nospam says is just wrong
because his ONLY goal is to defend the crippling flaws in iOS to the death.

[cris]

If you filtered out what you call the ikooks, there'd be nobody left here
but you and maybe two or three other people who aren't Apple nutcases.

[nospam]

In article <tcek4k$1hgr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >>> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
> >>>
> >>> Is this a fraud or theft?
> >>
> >> Theft.
> >
> > nope. it's copyright infringement.
>
> Every single time nospam denies facts like a flat earther does, he shows
> his true colors... <https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html>

pirating stuff from usenet (or elsewhere) is not in any way fair use.

fair use is a *defense*, not an excuse to intentionally pirate.

put down the shovel before you dig yourself an even deeper hole.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>>>> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a fraud or theft?
>>>>
>>>> Theft.
>>>
>>> nope. it's copyright infringement.
>>
>> Every single time nospam denies facts like a flat earther does, he shows
>> his true colors... <https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html>
>
> pirating stuff from usenet (or elsewhere) is not in any way fair use.
>
> fair use is a *defense*, not an excuse to intentionally pirate.
>
> put down the shovel before you dig yourself an even deeper hole.

Yet again, nospam, you prove you have a substandard IQ and no education.
*What's amazing is that you are actually the _smartest_ of the iKooks!*

It's interesting that you iKooks always form a VERY STRONG belief system
based on essentially zero actual facts, and even when facts are involved,
you iKooks don't own the IQ nor the education to comprehend complexities.

For example, you know I substitute teach STEM classes at the local schools
and yet you are likely completely unaware that the actual _use_ that you
put a copyrighted material to is a key part of some of the fair use tenets.

Hence, I could download a specific file and in one use it's copyright
infringement, and yet, in an educational use - it would likely not be.

Yet that trivially simple example completely eludes you strange iKooks.
Why?

I suspect you simply _hate_ that your beloved iOS is so crippled that it
can't do any of these functionality things that every other platform does.

Hence, speaking of a "defense", you defend the stone-age primitive crippled
iOS at all costs, claiming everything you can't do on iOS must be illegal.

As I study you iKooks (because I've never met people like you in all my
decades of working in Silicon Valley and going to the finest schools in the
country), I find that _every_ statement from you reeks of your low IQ and
almost complete lack of education nospam - since that's a trivial example.

It's no longer shocking you don't own the IQ nor education to comprehend
even that most trivial of simple examples that the _use_ also matters.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information,
which in this case is to understand why iKooks like nospam can't comprehend
even the simplest of the most basic of the most obvious copyright facts.

[R.Wieser]

Joerg,

> It is fraud. But you do not understand the economic logic behind it.

I must have missed where you mentioned on which laws its to be considered
fraud, or what that "the economic logic behind it" is. Would you be so
kind as to (re)post both ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[nospam]

In article <tcf6rj$1l81$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>> I can get lots of pirate stuff on Usenet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is this a fraud or theft?
> >>>>
> >>>> Theft.
> >>>
> >>> nope. it's copyright infringement.
> >>
> >> Every single time nospam denies facts like a flat earther does, he shows
> >> his true colors... <https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html>
> >
> > pirating stuff from usenet (or elsewhere) is not in any way fair use.
> >
> > fair use is a *defense*, not an excuse to intentionally pirate.
> >
> > put down the shovel before you dig yourself an even deeper hole.
>
> Yet again, nospam, you prove you have a substandard IQ and no education.
> *What's amazing is that you are actually the _smartest_ of the iKooks!*

instead of putting down the shovel, you chose to bring out the backhoe.

> It's interesting that you iKooks always form a VERY STRONG belief system
> based on essentially zero actual facts, and even when facts are involved,
> you iKooks don't own the IQ nor the education to comprehend complexities.

arlen-speak for 'i'm over my head but will pretend to know what i'm
talking about'.

> For example, you know I substitute teach STEM classes at the local schools

do the students laugh when you leave the room?

> and yet you are likely completely unaware that the actual _use_ that you
> put a copyrighted material to is a key part of some of the fair use tenets.
>
> Hence, I could download a specific file and in one use it's copyright
> infringement, and yet, in an educational use - it would likely not be.

it's a good thing you don't teach law, because what you describe is
infringing, and a fair use claim is highly unlikely to absolve you of
any liability.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.08.22 um 10:49 schrieb R.Wieser:

Do you really believe I get in the mood to answer your questions when I
read your header? Seriously?
I have better things to do in my life.

1. Your mail address is fake and/or does not belong to you.
2. You are using an anonymous Troll-server to post
3. You are using a client which is dead since Windows Vista. This means
more than 15 years and OE which does not conform with any agreed and
accepted standards.

Path:
news.solani.org!!weretis.net!reader6.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!XakcSTEO51npqVb7OVl71w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: Using Android's Mock Location Setting to Watch TV
Programming from Other Areas
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:49:17 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <tcg16i$f3k$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <tc9unn$15o6l$1...@dont-email.me> <tca8qr$7mj5$1...@solani.org>
<tcab0a$19nig$1...@dont-email.me> <tcacal$1a1q4$1...@dont-email.me>
<tcbkg5$70bj$1...@solani.org>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="15476";
posting-host="XakcSTEO51npqVb7OVl71w.user.gioia.aioe.org";
mail-complaints-to="ab...@aioe.org";
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512

> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

CU, Joerg


--
Ex iniuria ius non oritur

[Chris]

On 02/08/2022 20:18, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> Did I break the law?
>
>   ==== < cut here for what I just read as the cover story > ====

By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
infringed their copyright.

[R.Wieser]

Joerg,

> Do you really believe I get in the mood to answer your questions when I
> read your header? Seriously?
> I have better things to do in my life.

You have better things to do ? Really ?

Than why are you posting unsupported FUD like "fraud" and "economic logic"
claims ? Ofcourse, anyone not directly agreeing with your meaningless
shite is declared to be "dumb". You /really/ score points whith that you
know. /s

And than why are you here now ? You consider making a further fool of
yourself "something better" ?

> 1. Your mail address is fake and/or does not belong to you.

Do I reallty have to spell that email addres out for you ? But you know, I
can't escape the feeling that you understood just fine, but are bashing it
because you need something to bash.

> 2. You are using an anonymous Troll-server to post

And yes, something else to bash. Now trying to claim something bad -
unsupported ofcourse - about something I use, and suggesting that I, by
association, therefore must be bad too.

> 3. You are using a client which is dead since Windows Vista. This means
> more than 15 years and OE which does not conform with any agreed and
> accepted standards.

Could you read my message ? If so, than what is your problem ?

No kid, you're just conjuring reasons up which allow you to refuse respond
to a simple question.

You know what that makes your "fraud" and "economic logic" post look like,
right ? Yeah, thats right : pure, unmitigated hot-air bullshit.

tl;dr:
I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>>   ==== < cut here for what I just read as the cover story > ====
>
> By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
> infringed their copyright.

The problem with low IQ uneducated people like Chris is that they don't
understand that it "might" be copyright infringement, or, it might not be.

Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.
--





















Always remember... the reason they are iKooks is _because_ they're stupid.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> it's a good thing you don't teach law, because what you describe is
> infringing, and a fair use claim is highly unlikely to absolve you of
> any liability.

Misunderstanding copyright law is another example of _why_ you're iKooks.

a. iKooks can't understand anything slightly complex (aka *you're stupid*)
b. And iKooks know nothing about anything (aka *you're uneducated*)
c. But worse... *your ego is tied to the profits Apple makes* off of you

Therefore *you iKooks defend Apple to the death*, which, in this case means
*You claim everything iOS can't do must be illegal*

Even though every other platform can do it (including the macOS).

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.08.22 um 15:16 schrieb R.Wieser:

> I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
> my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.

I couldn't care less and I do not discuss with anonymous and therefore
(potentially) anti-social people.

BTW: You seem not to understand the nature and the character of the
Usenet. It is everybody's choice to answer or not to answer to any
question or post.



--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[nospam]

In article <tcgid7$4lr$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.

false. fair use is a *defense*. it does not allow anything, and even a
small portion can be infringing.

[nospam]

In article <tcggqv$1crg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser

<add...@not.available> wrote:

>
> > Do you really believe I get in the mood to answer your questions when I
> > read your header? Seriously?
> > I have better things to do in my life.
>
> You have better things to do ? Really ?

why wouldn't he?

> Than why are you posting unsupported FUD like "fraud" and "economic logic"
> claims ? Ofcourse, anyone not directly agreeing with your meaningless
> shite is declared to be "dumb". You /really/ score points whith that you
> know. /s

it's not unsupported fud and when did he call you dumb?

> tl;dr:
> I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
> my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.

history has shown that you aren't interested in changing your position,
no matter how much evidence is provided.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 04.08.22 um 17:11 schrieb nospam:

> it's not unsupported fud and when did he call you dumb?
>
>
>
>> tl;dr:
>> I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
>> my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.
>
> history has shown that you aren't interested in changing your position,
> no matter how much evidence is provided.

I do not Mr. Rudy Wieser but I'm long enough active in the Usnet to know
under which circumstances it is a waste of time to have a deeper
discussion with someone. I explained that in detail. There are some more
items but I left them aside.

In a certain way you are the famous exception, "nospam" ;-)

[R.Wieser]

Joerg,

> I couldn't care less and I do not discuss with anonymous
> and therefore (potentially) anti-social people.

Yeah, you made it quite clear that you don't want to discuss anything. But
as I already mentioned, I'm pretty sure you're just looking for reasons not
to have to engage in one, as you would look pretty stupid having nothing to
say other than "the companies told me what I told you guys, and I believed
them on their word".

As for that "(potentially) anti-social" ? You seem to have zero problems
with responding in that exact way to someone who asked a simple question.
Though I can imagine that you would find being talked to in the same way you
just talked to me quite offensive. And that makes you a hypocrite - you
(ofcourse!) may do that to others, but others may not do that to you.

> BTW: You seem not to understand the nature and the character of
> the Usenet.

What makes you think so ? And what makes you think you do ?

> It is everybody's choice to answer or not to answer to any question or
> post.

True. So is anybodies choice to behave like an asshole when he's caught out
not to actually know what he's talking about - while trying to make it sound
like someone else is the problem because he doesn't have or do the same
things you have or do. Kid, that kind of demonizing rethoric is rather
old.

I'm pretty sure that if you would not have found that "offensive" stuff in
the headers of my post(s) you would have come up with, or even conjured up
something else to complain about.

You're quite a dishonest piece of work you know - and yes, I think you know.
I don't think you're not /that/ stupid.

And kid, don't complain about getting your own stuff thrown back into your
face. If you don't like it you perhaps should not have started it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.
>
> false. fair use is a *defense*. it does not allow anything, and even a
> small portion can be infringing.

Adult observation:

1. You think we don't realize you claim everything you can't do on iOS
can't be done on iOS simply because (you claim) it's illegal to do them.

2. And yet _every_ other platform (including macOS) can do what iOS can't.

3. Hence your incessant claims the reason for iOS' crippling lack of
functionality is because basic functionality is illegal - is false.

The question becomes WHY you claim everything iOS can't do is illegal.

A. There is a _reason_ you claim everything you can't do on iOS is illegal.

B. However, the reason you do that year after year is known only to you.

C. I suspect it's this simple:
*You _hate_ iOS is so crippled that it can't do the simplest of things*

In your mind, if you can claim that all functionality people want is
illegal, then it justifies the crippling lack of that functionality in iOS.

[R.Wieser]

> I don't think you're not /that/ stupid.

shuld ofcourse have been

> I don't think you're /that/ stupid.

Shit happens when you edit the crap outof some text ..

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>   ==== < cut here for what I just read as the cover story > ====
>>
>> By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
>> infringed their copyright.
>
> The problem with low IQ uneducated people like Chris is that they don't
> understand that it "might" be copyright infringement, or, it might not be.

Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.

> Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.

Your example definitely wasn't fair use.

[nospam]

In article <tchd16$2tiev$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>
> >> By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
> >> infringed their copyright.
> >
> > The problem with low IQ uneducated people like Chris is that they don't
> > understand that it "might" be copyright infringement, or, it might not be.
>
> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.

ip lawyers strongly disagree. it's anything but straightforward.

> > Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.
>
> Your example definitely wasn't fair use.

correct.

[Andy Burnelli]

My main example was educational use which is often considered fair use.

My other example was a technical response of 'could it be done', which,
again, for research purposes, could easily be considered fair use.

However my _main_ point is that you iKooks _hate_ that iOS is crippled, so
what you do is you claim everything iOS can't do must be illegal to do.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>> Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.
>>
>> Your example definitely wasn't fair use.
>
> correct.

ADULT OBSERVATION

Given Steve kindly tutorialed useful basic functionality that isn't on the
crippled stone-age primitive iOS platform, my main point was that you
iKooks are _desperate_ to claim everything iOS can't do must be illegal to
do.

In this case, you claimed watching TV programming from other areas was
"fraud" as your rationale for why iOS lacks such basic functionality.

>> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
>
> ip lawyers strongly disagree. it's anything but straightforward.

Statements like that which show an appreciation for complexity are why
nospam is one of the smartest of all the iKooks, if not the smartest.

However, when you study nospam's responses to the lack of functionality on
the primitive stone-age iOS platform, you'll notice a common theme...

Everything iOS can't do that people want to do, iKooks claim is illegal to
do as their justification for why crippled iOS lacks even the most basic
common functionality such as watching TV programming from other areas.

[nospam]

In article <tchmnh$118s$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> In this case, you claimed watching TV programming from other areas was
> "fraud" as your rationale for why iOS lacks such basic functionality.

iphones can easily do that, if the user chooses to do so.

either you're incredibly stupid or you're deliberately lying. maybe
both.

[nospam]

In article <tchm1s$r47$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> However my _main_ point is that you iKooks _hate_ that iOS is crippled, so
> what you do is you claim everything iOS can't do must be illegal to do.

you're lying again. nobody has ever said that.

[Chris]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tchd16$2tiev$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
>>>> infringed their copyright.
>>>
>>> The problem with low IQ uneducated people like Chris is that they don't
>>> understand that it "might" be copyright infringement, or, it might not be.
>>
>> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
>
> ip lawyers strongly disagree. it's anything but straightforward.

They would. It's in their interest to make things as complicated as
possible. More billable hours.

In the real world it's straightforward. Especially for the written word.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>>>   ==== < cut here for what I just read as the cover story > ====
>>>>
>>>> By reposting an entire article without permission you definitely
>>>> infringed their copyright.
>>>
>>> The problem with low IQ uneducated people like Chris is that they don't
>>> understand that it "might" be copyright infringement, or, it might not be.
>>
>> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
>>
>>> Fair Use laws allow certain usages of the _entire_ copyrighted material.
>>
>> Your example definitely wasn't fair use.
>
> My main example was educational use which is often considered fair use.
>
> My other example was a technical response of 'could it be done', which,
> again, for research purposes, could easily be considered fair use.

Lol. Usenet is neither an educational nor research environment.

You only needed to post a couple of paragraphs - which *is* fair use - to
prove your point. Posting the whole article was unnecessary.

Anyway this all moot as no-one is going to care that a random is posting
there odd article on usenet.

Likewise media companies don't go after people who use VPNs. Not because it
doesn't contravene their T&Cs, but because it's counterproductive.

[Mitra Su Arıtma]

https://www.mitrasuaritma.com/ İzmir su arıtma
İzmir'in Her Bölgesine Aynı Gün Servis | Her Marka ve Model Su Arıtma Cihazı Bakım, Montajı, Arıza Onarım, Parça Değişim ve Filtre Değişim Servisi | Her Bütçeye Uygun Ödeme Seçenekleri İle En Kaliteli Su Arıtma Cihazları, Su Arıtma Filtreleri, Su Arıtma Yedek Parça ve Ekipmanları Yetkili Satış Firması
https://www.mitrasuaritma.com/izmir-su-aritma-servisi İzmir su arıtma
İzmir ve tüm ilçelerinde su arıtma servisi hizmetimiz bulunmaktadır. Her marka ve model su arıtma cihazı bakımı, su arıtma cihazı montajı, su arıtma cihazı arıza onarımı, su arıtma cihazı parça değişimi ve su arıtma cihazı filtre değişimi İzmir su arıtma servisi miz tarafından yapılmaktadır. İzmir su arıtma Firmamız da en iyi su arıtma cihazı su arıtma cihazları, su arıtma filtreleri, su arıtma parçaları ve su arıtma yedek parçaları satışı yapılmaktadır. Su arıtma cihazı fiyatları ve su arıtma filtre fiyatları, her bütceye uygun ödeme seçenekleri ile firmamız ve İzmir su arıtma firmaları olan İhlas su arıtma, lg su arıtma, arçelik su arıtma ve satmış oldukları ilhas su arıtma cihazı, lg su arıtma cihazı, Arçelik su arıtma cihazı gibi ürünleri içinde firmamız hizmet vermektedir. İhlas su arıtma filtresi, lg su arıtma filtresi, Arçelik su arıtma filtresi yerine uygun filtrelerimiz mevcuttur. Doktorların tavsiye ettiği su arıtma cihazı genelde Ev Tipi Su Arıtma Cihazı olmasına rağmen su arıtma cihazı fiyatları 2022 yılında artış göstermemiştir.
Su arıtma servisi Firmamız Mitra Su Arıtma olarak en çok desteklediğimiz sağlıklı su konusu ve düşünce yapımız amacına ulaşarak Türkiye ve İzmir su arıtma sektörü sağlıklı su ve içilebilir hizmeti vermek için Tezgah Altı Su Arıtma Cihazı Fiyatları ve Su arıtma filtreleri ve Su arıtma cihazi filtre değişimi fiyatlarıda artış göstermemiştir.

ihlas su arıtma cihazı ilk su arıtma cihazlarından olduğu için en iyi su arıtma cihazı olarak gösterilir bundan dolayı ihlas su arıtma cihazı fiyatları yüksek rakamlar ile kullanıcıya sunulur.
en iyi su arıtma cihazı, arçelik su arıtma cihazı fiyatları , aura cebilon su arıtma cihazı ,
amway su arıtma cihazı, aqua su arıtma cihazı,
arçelik su arıtma abonelik ücreti ne kadar, su arıtma brita ,
aura su arıtma cihazı fiyatları , su arıtma atık su, su arıtma aparatı,
aura su arıtma cihazı , su arıtma abonelik ücreti ne kadar ,
aura cebilon su arıtma cihazı yorumları ,
su arıtma aşamaları , su arıtma adaptörü , su arıtma abonelik , su arıtma aqua
amway su arıtma , su arıtma bataryası , su arıtma basınç düşürücü , su arıtma bağlantı şeması ,
İzmir su arıtma – İzmir su arıtma

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>> My other example was a technical response of 'could it be done', which,
>> again, for research purposes, could easily be considered fair use.
>
> Lol. Usenet is neither an educational nor research environment.

The adult point was that the intent matters in fair use tenets, Chris.

Besides, you iKooks are _desperate_ to claim the reason the iPhone is
crippled in functionality is because all basic functionality is illegal.

You seriously believe that's why the iPhone is crippled in functionality
(even as the Mac can do all these things that the crippled iPhone can't do)

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> However my _main_ point is that you iKooks _hate_ that iOS is crippled, so
>> what you do is you claim everything iOS can't do must be illegal to do.
>
> you're lying again. nobody has ever said that.

In your mind, if you can claim that all functionality people want is
illegal, then it justifies the crippling lack of that functionality in iOS.

You do it all the time nospam.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> In this case, you claimed watching TV programming from other areas was
>> "fraud" as your rationale for why iOS lacks such basic functionality.
>
> iphones can easily do that, if the user chooses to do so.

The fact remains a fact that the iPhone cannot do what you claim.
*It's always the same with you nospam.*

You _hate_ that the iPhone is crippled in functionality, so you incessantly
claim that any functionality that the iPhone can't do, must be illegal.

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>>> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
>>
>> ip lawyers strongly disagree. it's anything but straightforward.
>
> They would. It's in their interest to make things as complicated as
> possible. More billable hours.

It's interesting to keep in mind the iKooks are _desperate_ to claim that
the reason the iPhone is crippled in functionality is that basic
functionality is illegal (in their minds).

That's what this thread is about:
a. Steve tutorialed how to watch TV programming from other areas
b. Steve mentioned the iPhone is crippled in this functionality
c. The iKooks claimed the iPhone is crippled because basic
functionality, in their mind, should be illegal.

This happens every time with these iKooks.

[nospam]

In article <tcij8r$1kbu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> In this case, you claimed watching TV programming from other areas was
> >> "fraud" as your rationale for why iOS lacks such basic functionality.
> >
> > iphones can easily do that, if the user chooses to do so.
>
> The fact remains a fact that the iPhone cannot do what you claim.

wrong. it easily can.

the fact remains that you can't figure out how, which means you're both
stupid and a liar.

[nospam]

In article <tcid37$3331b$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Copyright is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.
> >
> > ip lawyers strongly disagree. it's anything but straightforward.
>
> They would. It's in their interest to make things as complicated as
> possible. More billable hours.

do you really think lawyers think so little of their clients that they
would falsely claim something is complicated solely to artificially
inflate their billable hours??

> In the real world it's straightforward. Especially for the written word.

that is simply false.

the reality is that it is complicated.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> My other example was a technical response of 'could it be done', which,
>>> again, for research purposes, could easily be considered fair use.
>>
>> Lol. Usenet is neither an educational nor research environment.
>
> The adult point was that the intent matters in fair use tenets, Chris.

Yup. You knowingly infringed copyright.

You can't self-identify as a researcher or educationist just because it
suits you or you read a book about it.

[sms]

On 8/4/2022 11:35 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> You only needed to post a couple of paragraphs - which *is* fair use - to
> prove your point. Posting the whole article was unnecessary.

True. A quote with a link is fine. Posting an entire copyrighted article
is not fine.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>>>> In this case, you claimed watching TV programming from other areas was
>>>> "fraud" as your rationale for why iOS lacks such basic functionality.
>>>
>>> iphones can easily do that, if the user chooses to do so.
>>
>> The fact remains a fact that the iPhone cannot do what you claim.
>
> wrong. it easily can.
>
> the fact remains that you can't figure out how, which means you're both
> stupid and a liar.

Adult observation:

For anyone to prove you have a low IQ & no education is so easy that I
easily accept your kindergarten baseless "liar liar pants on fire"
Alan-Baker'ish childish taunt because it's all you can think of.

*You iKooks can't respond to facts at the _adult_ level, nospam.*

The reason your inability to respond to facts at the adult level is why it
matters that you *iKooks all own a low-IQ and no education*. These two
observations are important because they are two of the three pillars that
cause you to be iKooks in the first place.

1. Low IQ
2. No education

The third pillar is the concurrent observation that your ego is in the
toilet (rightly so) such that your entire sense of being is innately
intertwined with your self-chosen selection of the crippled Apple product
line to the point that you deny every fact you _hate_ about Apple.

3. Your ego is intertwined with Apple success

In this case, your ego can't accept the reality that there is tons of basic
common functionality on all other common consumer platforms _except iOS.

Because of #3, you _hate_ that iOS is crippled, and because of #2 you can't
comprehend Apple hoodwinked you, and because of #1 you can't respond to
facts like a normal adult would.

So you simply claim all functionality you hate iOS can't do... is illegal.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

> the reality is that it is complicated.

Adult observation...

This response is why nospam is the _smartest_ of the iKooks because he
realizes Chris is desperate to defend crippled iOS based on copyright law.

Remember how this conversation (and most like it) got started.
1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a functionality tutorial
2. He noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality
3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*

This shows how _desperate_ the iKooks are to claim that the reason iOS is
crippled in functionality is that basic functionality should be illegal.

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

> Yup. You knowingly infringed copyright.

What if I did? At least I had the choice.

Remember what transpired...
1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a neat functionality tutorial
2. Steve noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality

3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*

> You can't self-identify as a researcher or educationist just because it
> suits you or you read a book about it.

What happened in this thread shows how _desperate_ iKooks are to claim that
the reason iOS is crippled in functionality is that it should be illegal.

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

>> You only needed to post a couple of paragraphs - which *is* fair use - to
>> prove your point. Posting the whole article was unnecessary.
>
> True. A quote with a link is fine. Posting an entire copyrighted article
> is not fine.

Please don't lose track of the _adult_ observation of what _always_ happens.

1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a neat functionality tutorial
2. Steve noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality
3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*

The _adult_ question for us to ask is the deeper understanding of _why_ do
the iKooks think every functionality iOS can't do must be illegal to do?

Specifically, _why_ do iKooks think it is "fraud" to be able to do this?
*Use Mock Location Setting to Watch TV Programming from Other Areas*

[Ken Hart]

On 8/1/2022 9:30 PM, sms wrote:

> 8. If your phone can cast wirelessly to a TV, or supports HDMI-Out via
> the USB port, you can watch on a larger screen.
>
> Sadly, none of this works on iOS devices because Apple doesn't allow
> mock GPS locations.

I only opened this thread due to the number of responses.

On the windows newsgroup there is discussion of mirroring phones onto pc's.

Can't you mirror your phone to your computer display at the full screen
level so that the tv station shows up at the size of your pc monitor?
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[nospam]

In article <tcjm97$qli$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Remember what transpired...

you trolled.

> 1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a neat functionality tutorial

it was incomplete, and solely to bash ios.

> 2. Steve noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality

except that ios can do that. as usual, he's wrong.

> 3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*

laws vary, but what he described is illegal in most jurisdictions.

[nospam]

In article <tcjmrt$12m0$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:

>
> Can't you mirror your phone to your computer display at the full screen
> level so that the tv station shows up at the size of your pc monitor?

of course, or better yet, cast it to a tv, but the easiest is stream
content directly on the computer or tv, without needing to involve
multiple devices.

[sms]

Yes. There are multiple options.

1. Wirelessly casting your phone screen to the PC or TV.

2. Using a cable (Lightning to HDMI or USB to HDMI).

It all depends on the capabilities of the phone and the TV or computer.
Most low-end phones don't send video out the USB port or have wireless
casting.

I find the wired approach works better for video, though I've down
Powerpoint and Google Slides presentations by wireless casting of the
screen.

[Chris]

Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Yup. You knowingly infringed copyright.
>
> What if I did? At least I had the choice.
>
> Remember what transpired...
> 1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a neat functionality tutorial
> 2. Steve noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality
> 3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*
>
>> You can't self-identify as a researcher or educationist just because it
>> suits you or you read a book about it.
>
> What happened in this thread shows how

Arlen gets caught bluffing and then reverts to type: attack, deflect, snip.

[Frank Slootweg]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 04.08.22 um 15:16 schrieb R.Wieser:
> > I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
> > my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.
>
> I couldn't care less and I do not discuss with anonymous and therefore
> (potentially) anti-social people.

"anonymous"? Exactly *which* part of "R.Wieser"/"Rudy Wieser" didn't
you understand? (And to pre-empt: His server has nothing to do with his
'From:' line or signoff.)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 06.08.22 um 20:38 schrieb Frank Slootweg:

Read the whole subthread before asking redundant questions.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

> and then reverts to type: attack, deflect, snip.

And yet, the _adults_ will note that I'm not the one claiming watching TV
programming from other areas is illegal simply because iOS can't do it.

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Remember what transpired...
>
> you trolled.

No. You iKooks are the trolls here because you defend Apple's flaws to the
death, in this case claiming that it's illegal to have functionality that
you can't have on iOS, such as watching TV programming from other areas.

>> 1. Someone (Steve in this case) wrote a neat functionality tutorial
>
> it was incomplete, and solely to bash ios.

FACT

Steve posted a tutorial that you iKooks could never have posted.
He posted that tutorial to help others.
It just happens to be the fact that iOS is crippled.

So Steve's tutorial only works on Android.

You _hate_ that fact.
*You _hate_ that iOS is crippled.*

Every day we do basic functionality on Android which is impossible on iOS.

>> 2. Steve noted that iOS can't do this rather useful basic functionality
>
> except that ios can do that. as usual, he's wrong.

FACT
No. You're wrong.

Mock location (GPS spoofing) works _perfectly_ on Android.
It's even part of the operating system.

The clusterfuck method you propose is something out of Rube Goldberg.
Your typical Apple clusterfuck requires carrying a Mac around with you.

The fact is that the iPhone is crippled without an entire computer added.

>
>> 3. *The iKooks came out in force saying that functionality is illegal*
>
> laws vary, but what he described is illegal in most jurisdictions.

FACT

You low-IQ no-education iKooks don't realize your basic defense to the fact
you _hate_ iOS is crippled is (a) to first claim nobody wants
functionality, and when that doesn't work, (b) you claim basic
functionality is illegal, and if that doesn't work (c) you fabricate
imaginary iOS functionality.

You did all three in this thread.

What's interesting is you don't own the IQ nor education to fabricate a
better excuse for the crippling lack of iOS functionality than that.

[Chris]

Literally no-one is claiming that.

[Andy Burnelli]

Chris wrote:

>> And yet, the _adults_ will note that I'm not the one claiming watching TV
>> programming from other areas is illegal simply because iOS can't do it.
>
> Literally no-one is claiming that.

Hi Chris,

You're not looking at this problem at an _adult_ level of comprehension.
*You iKooks _hate_ that iOS is crippled in basic functionality*
*So you fabricated that basic mock location functionality must be illegal*

Essentially, you iKooks hate that iOS is crippled, so what you did when
Steve mentioned that fact was claim that the functionality that Steve was
tutorialing must be illegal because _you_ can't do it on iOS.

You iKooks do this all the time, which is how I know your IQ is low and
that you lack education because that's the _best_ you can come up with.

You iKooks can't incorporate the fact that iOS is crippled into your
imaginary belief system, so you are _desperate_ to excuse that fact.

1. In this case, you iKooks claimed basic functionality is illegal.
2. In other cases you iKooks claim nobody wants basic functionality.
3. In other cases you iKooks fabricate the basic functionality exists.

It's _always_ the same set of excuses for the lack of iOS functionality.
Which, again, is how I know you iKooks have a low IQ & no education.

[sms]

Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing. Of course
it's a ludicrous claim.

And actually iOS can do mock locations, but it requires jailbreaking.
See <https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/06/15/location-faker/>.

There are a bunch of capabilities that are easily available on Android
devices that are also available on iOS, but only if the device has been
jailbroken.

[Alan]

On 2022-08-08 08:54, sms wrote:
> On 8/7/2022 9:11 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Andy Burnelli <sp...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> and then reverts to type: attack, deflect, snip.
>>>
>>> And yet, the _adults_ will note that I'm not the one claiming
>>> watching TV
>>> programming from other areas is illegal simply because iOS can't do it.
>>
>> Literally no-one is claiming that.
>
> Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing. Of course
> it's a ludicrous claim.
>

And yet no quote of anyone claiming it is forthcoming...

Weird, huh?

:-)

[nospam]

In article <tcrbjl$vh60$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

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

> >> And yet, the _adults_ will note that I'm not the one claiming watching TV
> >> programming from other areas is illegal simply because iOS can't do it.
> >
> > Literally no-one is claiming that.
>
> Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing.

nobody was, except for 'arlen', who lies about everything and anything.

> Of course
> it's a ludicrous claim.

yes it is, which is why only 'arlen' said it.

> And actually iOS can do mock locations, but it requires jailbreaking.

it does not.

> There are a bunch of capabilities that are easily available on Android
> devices that are also available on iOS, but only if the device has been
> jailbroken.

very, very few. almost none, in fact.

meanwhile, there are far more capabilities on ios than on android,
without any jailbreak whatsoever. a lengthy yet only a partial list was
posted a couple of days ago.

[Frank Slootweg]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 06.08.22 um 20:38 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >> Am 04.08.22 um 15:16 schrieb R.Wieser:
> >>> I gave you a chance to teach me/us about both, possibly even swaying
> >>> my/someones position. You refused. Don't complain about the result.
> >>
> >> I couldn't care less and I do not discuss with anonymous and therefore
> >> (potentially) anti-social people.
> >
> > "anonymous"? Exactly *which* part of "R.Wieser"/"Rudy Wieser" didn't
> > you understand? (And to pre-empt: His server has nothing to do with his
> > 'From:' line or signoff.)
>
> Read the whole subthread before asking redundant questions.

Sigh! Of course I did read the whole (sub)thread!

There's nothing which supports your "anonymous and therefore
(potentially) anti-social people" sneer. But then you have a tendency to
refer to non-existent text/posts, so nothing new there.

So back up your "anonymous" claim or enjoy the egg/pie.

[Your Name]

Nobody claimed it because it's just more of the usual anti-Apple
nonsense from the know-nothing troll. Side-stepping whether or not it
is illegal, you can easily "watch TV from other areas" on iOS device,
or any device at all.

If people would stop replying to the dumb-ass, it would get bored and go away.

[Andy Burnelli]

Your Name wrote:

> Nobody claimed it because it's just more of the usual anti-Apple
> nonsense from the know-nothing troll.

hehehheh... Steve was right from the start.

The _only_ response these low-IQ no-education iKooks have is to claim that
every fact about Apple must be wrong simply because _they_ hate all facts.

Hell... adults see that in the _first_ response to Steve (and many more)
from those iKooks the facts as stated of what the iKooks said & did.

Remember, this Your Name is so stupid he had to be told by multiple iKooks
that his child-like imaginary belief system about Windows upgrades was
about as wrong as wrong can be - and he _still_ doesn't believe the facts.

That's how infantile Your Name truly is.
*The fact is _iOS is crippled_ in that it can't do even basic things.*

[Andy Burnelli]

nospam wrote:

>> Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing.
>
> nobody was, except for 'arlen', who lies about everything and anything.

It's interesting you deny what you, yourself, said, in your posts to Steve.

>
>> Of course
>> it's a ludicrous claim.
>
> yes it is, which is why only 'arlen' said it.

And yet, it's _you_ who said it.
I simply pointed to what _you_ said, nospam.

>
>> And actually iOS can do mock locations, but it requires jailbreaking.
>
> it does not.

Then simply post the name of the app you claim exists on the app store.

>
>> There are a bunch of capabilities that are easily available on Android
>> devices that are also available on iOS, but only if the device has been
>> jailbroken.
>
> very, very few. almost none, in fact.

The amount of basic functionality common on all other platforms but
completely imposssible to do with iOS is no longer shoicking.

It's huge what the crippled iOS can NOT do.
But it's no longer shocking that iOS is crippled.

> meanwhile, there are far more capabilities on ios than on android,
> without any jailbreak whatsoever. a lengthy yet only a partial list was
> posted a couple of days ago.

Yeah. All you did was cut and paste a trademark list from Apple, nospam.

You didn't even understand what half those trademarks even stood for.

For example, you claimed that only iOS has "electronic payment".
And you claimed only Apple has "animoji" nospam.

C'mon. Only the iKooks are so stupid as to believe only Apple has that.

There are good reasons the iPhone is crippled in functionality nospam.
Your baseless claims that only Apple can do trademarks proves the point.

[Andy Burnelli]

sms wrote:

> Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing. Of course
> it's a ludicrous claim.
>
> And actually iOS can do mock locations, but it requires jailbreaking.
> See <https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/06/15/location-faker/>.
>
> There are a bunch of capabilities that are easily available on Android
> devices that are also available on iOS, but only if the device has been
> jailbroken.

The fact is that everything Steve said about Android & iOS is correct.
He (and I) would know because we own plenty of both platforms.

What transpired in this thread (by way of summary) is what _always_ happens

1. Steve mentioned basic functionality
2. This basic funcdtionality doesn't exist on iOS
3. The iKooks _hated_ that fact

So what do the iKooks do (every time anyone proves iOS is crippled)?
*The iKooks claimed that basic functionality should be illegal!*

The question isn't that iKooks claim all basic functionality that iOS lacks
should be illegal... because that's what they do.

a. iKooks claim basic call recording functionality should be illegal
b. iKooks claim basic torrenting functionality should be illegal
c. iKooks claim basic mock-location functionality should be illegal
etc.

It's no longer shocking that iKooks claim all the basic functionality that
is impossible on iOS should be illegal - even as most of it is on the mac!

[cris]

Yes they do say everything that isn't on iOS is because it's illegal.
So what?

Let them believe what they want to believe if it makes them feel better
about themselves.

[Alan]

No. Literally no one has said that.

[Alan]

On 2022-08-08 15:30, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> Pretty sure that some people were claiming this exact thing. Of course
>> it's a ludicrous claim.
>>
>> And actually iOS can do mock locations, but it requires jailbreaking.
>> See <https://www.idownloadblog.com/2020/06/15/location-faker/>.
>>
>> There are a bunch of capabilities that are easily available on Android
>> devices that are also available on iOS, but only if the device has
>> been jailbroken.
>
> The fact is that everything Steve said about Android & iOS is correct.
> He (and I) would know because we own plenty of both platforms.
>
> What transpired in this thread (by way of summary) is what _always_ happens
>
> 1. Steve mentioned basic functionality
> 2. This basic funcdtionality doesn't exist on iOS
> 3. The iKooks _hated_ that fact
>
> So what do the iKooks do (every time anyone proves iOS is crippled)?
> *The iKooks claimed that basic functionality should be illegal!*
>
> The question isn't that iKooks claim all basic functionality that iOS lacks
> should be illegal... because that's what they do.
>
> a. iKooks claim basic call recording functionality should be illegal

Lie.

> b. iKooks claim basic torrenting functionality should be illegal

Lie.

> c. iKooks claim basic mock-location functionality should be illegal

Lie.

[nospam]

In article <tcs2e9$1leg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> For example, you claimed that only iOS has "electronic payment".

nope. that's not what i said.

either you're too stupid to understand simple english or you're
deliberately lying. neither are good.

[cris]

Then why did they immediately call it fraud when it's not fraud at all?

[Alan]

Why did WHO immediately call WHAT "fraud"...

...and how can such a statement support a claim that:

"Yes they do say EVERYTHING that isn't on iOS is because it's illegal"?

Your cogent answer is awaited...

..but I'm not holding my breath.

[nospam]

In article <tcs5ne$4jad$1...@news.mixmin.net>, cris

<cr...@removespam.me.com> wrote:

> >>> It's no longer shocking that iKooks claim all the basic functionality that
> >>> is impossible on iOS should be illegal - even as most of it is on the mac!
> >>
> >> Yes they do say everything that isn't on iOS is because it's illegal.
> >> So what?
> >
> > No. Literally no one has said that.
>
> Then why did they immediately call it fraud when it's not fraud at all?

what was described *is* fraud, but that isn't what 'arlen' is falsely
claiming nor is it even relevant.

[cris]

On 08/08/2022 16:51, nospam wrote:

>> Then why did they immediately call it fraud when it's not fraud at all?
>
> what was described *is* fraud

Who said "That is fraud should it work?"

And then who said "It is [fraud] when you deliberately falsify your
location to see it?"

[Alan]

You're carefully removing the context...

...from which I can only conclude that you are conceding defeat.

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

> Sigh! Of course I did read the whole (sub)thread!

I hope you do realize that that he was just sending you off on a wild goose
chase, in an attempt to get you off his back for a while and at the same
time wear you down.

Also, you would have been looking for something only /he/ knows what it
looks like. Take a wild guess to what that means ...

> There's nothing which supports your "anonymous and therefore
> (potentially) anti-social people" sneer.

:-) It was not ment to be scrutinized! Its just there as a justification
for when he wants to stop responding to someone, anyone. A nice bit of
bigotry though.

Also, its rather hypocritical, knowing how he has no problem with responding
in an anti-social way himself.

In short, its just a rather clumsy attempt to fabricate himself a "get outof
jail free" card.

> So back up your "anonymous" claim or enjoy the egg/pie.

In another rather unexpected move (yeah, right) he seems to, rather
silently, have left the building ...


But alas, he will pop up here or in another newsgroup soon enough. He
simply can't resist the temptation to make someone else believe that he
knows stuff.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Recently (a few weeks back) I had the "pleasure" to talk to another one of
the "knights of claim-a-lot" who showed the almost exact same behaviour
(though he had a bit more stamina). Any idea if our "Joerg" here is perhaps
also a nym-shifter?

[sms]

On 8/8/2022 4:20 PM, cris wrote:

<snip>

> Then why did they immediately call it fraud when it's not fraud at all?

LOL, "they" have an excuse for every Android feature that is not
available on iOS. At least until that feature makes it to iOS!

Glad to see that the percentage battery indicator is coming back on iOS
16, but when it was removed, due to the notch taking up so much screen
area, "they" proclaimed that it was unnecessary. It never disappeared on
my iPhone 6s Plus, but isn't present on my iPhone Xr.

My iPhone is my daily driver these days, but sometimes I grab my old
Samsung Note 9 if I know that I'll need to use a feature that is not
available on the iPhone.