I have a Pinephone. It has never worked.
--
John Hasler
john@sugarbit.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> wrote at 15:30 this Sunday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>>> https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
>
>>Awesome, I might look at getting one.
>
> Read the comments under the article, mostly negative, for a reason.
>
> -jw-

Oh.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2024-03-23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "andal" <andal@andal.org> wrote
>>
>> | >> Why is it impossible to simply buy a
>> | >> cellphone that's not controlled by the OS provider? My TV doesn't force
>> | >> me to watch CBS TV. My car doesn't limit the supermarkets I can drive
>> | >> to.
>>
>> | get a linux cellphone and you have more then smart
>>
>> That might work for a small population of geeks. For me, it's
>> just not worth the trouble to work out the details. For the
>> average person it's not feasible at all. Personally I'd go further and
>> say that the culture of geek arrogance makes things worse,
>> as it becomes a mark of geek status to do things like run a
>> jailbroken cellphone. The issue is much bigger: Jailed cellphones
>> need to be illegal. Anyone should be able to buy a clean cellphone
>> and sign up with any service provider, with clearly delineated
>> fees.
>
> It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
> phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
> unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.

There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:

1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
from any number of retailers.
2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
installments as part of the phone bill.

If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
the phone).

>> [...]
>> The suit explains that sleazy licensing deals, limitations set
>> by phone services, and Apple's deliberate blocking of interactibility,
>> have left only Apple, Samsung and Google as serious cellphone
>> makers. Microsoft, Amazon, HTC and others had to drop out
>> because they couldn't get market share.
>
> Probably another US-ism. In other countries, there are many, many
> other brands. In our country - The Netherlands - Google phones weren't
> even sold until not too long ago.

There are a number of brands that're only selling "Cellphones" rather
than "smartphones".

Less than there used to be, but that probably comes from the hegemony of
Apple/Samsung/Google(nee Motorola) and people generally being dumb (I
have the best "camera" or whatever ... battery life? nah, that thing
dies in 6 hours of goofing around...)

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote

| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
| | There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
| | 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
| from any number of retailers.
| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
| installments as part of the phone bill.
| | If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
| the phone).
|

I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what
I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the
Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose
to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer
phones locked into Apple's app source.

From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
going through their services, regardless of which phone
they buy.

Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk fees,
and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
Apple.

This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the device
incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the DMCA
to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we effectively
have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their
functionality?

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/

One side aspect of that is what Tim Berners-Lee has described as
"silos" -- functionalty extending across domains by single entities.
For instance, Android computer phone, Google search, gmail, Google
Wallet, "sync" services, etc. Many people can't afford to even consider
leaving Google. Apple is the same. Which likely accounts partially
for the growing popularity of iPhones: People switched to Macs to
avoid malware. Once they do that, an iPhone makes sense.
Incompatibility and lock-in make silo living an obvious choice. The
particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21 -0400, Newyana2 wrote:

> "Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>
> | > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
> | > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have |
> > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
> |
> | There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
> |
> | 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
> | from any number of retailers.
> | 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24 |
> installments as part of the phone bill.
> |
> | If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that |
> carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon |
> request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
> | the phone).
> |
>
> I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
> For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what I'm
> primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the Google
> processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose to deal with
> Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.
> The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer phones
> locked into Apple's app source.
>
> From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
> into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
> recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>
> Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
> going through their services, regardless of which phone they buy.
>
> Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk
> fees,
> and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
> but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
> Apple.
>
> This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
> what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
> We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
> Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
> control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
> in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the
> device incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the
> DMCA to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we
> effectively have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to
> their functionality?
>
> https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-
official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-
privacy/
>
> One side aspect of that is what Tim Berners-Lee has described as
> "silos" -- functionalty extending across domains by single entities.
> For instance, Android computer phone, Google search, gmail, Google
> Wallet, "sync" services, etc. Many people can't afford to even consider
> leaving Google. Apple is the same. Which likely accounts partially for
> the growing popularity of iPhones: People switched to Macs to avoid
> malware. Once they do that, an iPhone makes sense.
> Incompatibility and lock-in make silo living an obvious choice. The
> particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
> the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
> requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.

the less freedom the better

stupid people are easier to govern

that is what my gov says

welcome to animal planet

--
Painters, electricians, comedians, journalists, rule the world.

In message <utrubi$1426l$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>
>| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
>| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
>| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
>|
>| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
>|
>| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
>| from any number of retailers.
>| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
>| installments as part of the phone bill.

Presumably you _could_ do route #1 and get credit from someone other
than the carrier or OS provider (bank loan, credit card, ...).
>|
>| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
>| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
>| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
>| the phone).
>|
So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
conceal what part of the monthly payment is paying off the 'phone, and
what part is for the service provision. (I _think_ our [UK and EU]
legislators clamped down on that.)
>
> I think there's a confusion here with hardware vs carrier vs OS.
>For any but extreme geeks, the OS is locked spyware. That's what
>I'm primarily talking about as "jailed". I can't eliminate all of the
>Google processes on my Android computer phone. Yet I never chose
>to deal with Google. I bought a phone and get service from Tracfone.

Though I don't think you actually pay anything to Google, apart from the
part of the 'phone purchase price that is for the OS, same as part of a
Windows computer purchase price is the Windows licence. (Yes, I know you
can buy Windows separately, but most people don't - certainly don't _do_
that, and probably don't _know_ that.)

>The typical use of "jailbroken" that I've heard is with computer
>phones locked into Apple's app source.
>
> From what I can see, both Apple and Google are locking people
>into their spyware services and app stores. That's largely what the
>recent US lawsuit against Apple is about:
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>
> Apple are more forceful than Google, but the average person is
>going through their services, regardless of which phone
>they buy.

Indeed - UK is similarly mostly iOS and Android for 'phones, though I
don't think the Apple share is as high (less than half, I think). Other
'phone OSs have minimal shares.
>
> Deals with carriers, incompatibilities with SIM cards, hidden junk fees,
>and so on are an additional complication. All of that is a big problem,
>but it's not part of the basic lock-in by the OS from either Google or
>Apple.
>
> This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
>what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
>We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.

I used to have hardware that I buy and software that I buy as well. OK,
I didn't buy absolute ownership of the software - that would of course
cost millions - but the right to use it; maybe that's what you mean by
licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
often means for a limited period.

>Increasingly we have what's effectively rental of kiosk devices that
>control what can be done and spy on every action. Even cars are headed
>in that direction, as well as, of course, doorbells. By saying the device
>incorporates coyrighted software, the companies can call on the DMCA
>to justify lockdown, spyware and rental. How long before we effectively
>have to rent all devices and have only kiosk-style access to their
>functionality?

Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
(except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
[]
>particular genius of Google and Apple is to herd their customers into
>the abattoir by making it a frictionless choice. Any other option
>requires climbing the fence to get out of the abattoir chute.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9-ntiFBa08 (first part at least)
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By most scientific estimates sustained, useful fusion is ten years in
the future - and will be ten years in the future for the next fifty
years or more. - "Hamadryad", ~2016-4-4

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| > This is a problem that's getting worse, not better. Microsoft see
| >what Apple gets away with and now they also want part of the action.
| >We used to have hardware that we buy and software that we license.
| | I used to have hardware that I buy and software that I buy as well. OK,
| I didn't buy absolute ownership of the software - that would of course
| cost millions - but the right to use it; maybe that's what you mean by
| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
| often means for a limited period.
|

Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although
companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
entirely fair.

There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.

I think the software rental idea really came about because software
was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.
Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
anxxious to see the next version of their product.

So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month.
If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
whole new industry....

Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
to rent?

| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.

That's a good question. The technology and politics are
moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
lights stop working?

In message <utset6$1861v$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:13:48,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
[]
>| licence, but I meant right to use it indefinitely, not any sort of
>| agreement that had to be renewed (sometimes it was tied to the hardware,
>| which was fair enough as long as that was clear). These days "licence"
>| often means for a limited period.
>|
>
> Yes. That's the rental trend. Software is sold as copyrighted
>material. So it's like a book. You have a right to do as you like
>with your copy, so long as you don't distribute copies. Although

Indeed, used to be the case.

>companies like Microsoft have exploited the situation to link
>Windows to hardware, while others have exploited the situation
>to copy software to multiple computers. No easy solution that's
>entirely fair.

I had sympathy with them, and accepted the hardware tie, when Windows up
to 98SE (maybe Me) had no copy protection, so people were pirating
rather than buying. Activation, hardware tie-in, etc., aren't nice, but
we've only ourselves to blame for them being necessary. (Actually I
_have_ bought all my MS products, but some may be OEM copies bought with
a mouse, or similar.)
>
> There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
>to have to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
>a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
>hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
>e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
>neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.

Good example.
>
> I think the software rental idea really came about because software
>was getting mature. For many years people would buy new computers
>and software regularly. It made sense. 300 MHz was much slower than
>400 MHz, ans Photoshop 4 was primitive compared to PS5. But gradually
>the technology matured and people just didn't need to upgrade so often.

Yes, not so much the speed, but the features. But as you say, it
matured: for me roughly a couple of decades ago, I reached a point where
I had all the software I needed, i. e. new versions didn't offer me
anything I actually wanted. (And also, needed more hardware.) OK, that's
a _slight_ exaggeration, but _major_ upgrades - e. g. to Word/Office,
let alone Windows itself - genuinely didn't seem to offer me anything I
wanted.

>Where we used to pay for image viewers and WinZip, now it's mostly
>free. So companies had to do something. Companies like Adobe and
>Microsoft (MS Office) were facing losses. Customers were no longer
>anxxious to see the next version of their product.
>
> So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
>Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
>approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their

I'm fine with 7, and (I think more because of a hosts file than
ad-blockers) I rarely see ad.s. Except on YouTube - where, although they
irritate me, I accept them as the price I pay for getting what I
consider an excellent resource for "free".

>new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical. They're forcing it on people and
>then advertising that a more functional version is available for $20/month.
>If they could just get one hit with a product like that they'd have a
>whole new industry....

I've not heard of that one.
>
> Interestingly, I just read that MS are planning
>to offer real MS Office software again. Though I haven't seen anything
>about pricing, or whether it might just be a UWP/Metro trinket. I don't
>know what their thinking is. Is O365 failing? Are businesses unwilling
>to rent?

Interesting question! Though I thought businesses were the ones keeping
MS going (that and new-machine Windows licences) by paying
support/maintenance fees (because it's easier and possibly cheaper to do
so).
>
>| Not long, I fear. If I buy a new car, I'd want to find and disconnect
>| (except when _I_ want to use it) the cellular connection, but I'm not
>| sure if they've managed to make doing that illegal.
>
> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
>moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
>companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
>will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
>obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
>rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
>seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
>clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
>or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
>lights stop working?
>
That's how, I think, they'll manage it, rather than legislation (though
they'll cow [and/or bribe] legislators too if they can): they'll stop
things working if not online, at least at intervals. I would _hope_ the
EC (and hopefully UK) will push against that, but ...
>
I foresee a premium growing on Model Ts ... (-: [or at least 1960s-'80s
cars.]
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On 3/25/24 14:13, Newyana2 wrote:

> There's been an issue with US libraries where publishers want them
> to have sinfect!to buy new e-books every x number of checkouts. They make
> a good point that e-books don't wear out like books do. On the other
> hand, there's a great deal of money saved by not having to print
> e-books, yet they typically charge about 50% of book price. Again,
> neither side is really willing to find a fair compromise.

x-post snipped

Cap intellectual property rights to 3 years, the message being that if
you are not at all willing to ever share freely with humanity then maybe
you should keep your idea to yourself. Someone WILL nonetheless come
along with the same idea in a more social tone of voice because being
human just is that way. Years ago I took out a then available $100
'provisional' patent which was good for one year giving me 12 months to
formalize or abandon. On abandoning the idea went public-domain, and
that's exactly what I had paid $100 for, to protect a registered
published innovation as public domain for ever pucking the idea-stealing
scum that otherwise WOULD have ended up owning MY idea (see the mp3
story). Now that idea comes up as public domain on every search and
there's nothing that can be done about it. This was neither my first nor
my only patent but the past had been a faithful tutor. Little wonder
they did away with provisional-patents.

> So rental is the answer. MS are clearly trying to do the same with
> Windows, but it's not really working. So they're taking a different
> approach of trying to show ads and sell "premium content". Their
> new crap trinket, Copilot, is typical.

Looking up 'farmers VS John-Deere' might be very educational. As another
reader pointed a software-free hardware industry is forming, once off
warranty no one can force software rental on you unless you only rented
the hardware too.

> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
> moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
> companies are jacking up rates based on spying.

Before that was done on a voluntary basis to get lower rates, now it
will remove all risk for the insurer. My only question in that case is
why pay money if there's no risk for the insurer? Is there some natural
law that says insurers have a divine right to assured profit
continuously flowing from the tap? If it is known that I will have a
$20k claim then I can't get insured anyway, if I know that I won't then
why insure?

On 2024-03-25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <utrubi$1426l$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:31:21,
> Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>>"Dan Purgert" <dan@djph.net> wrote
>>
>>| > It's not a 'jailed' mobile phone, but a (network) *locked* mobile
>>| > phone. That seems to be a US-ism, because most countries just have
>>| > unlocked phones which can use any SIM for any provider.
>>|
>>| There are two routes one can use to buy a phone here in the states:
>>|
>>| 1. Buy Carrier-Agnostic phone for $PRICE (I dunno, let's say $500),
>>| from any number of retailers.
>>| 2. Get Carrier-Locked "free(tm)" phone, that's paid off in 24
>>| installments as part of the phone bill.
>
> Presumably you _could_ do route #1 and get credit from someone other
> than the carrier or OS provider (bank loan, credit card, ...).

Quite so -- but the issue is "the sticker says it's $500" vs "it's free*"

[*] right now; but we add $20 / month to your bill </fine-print>

>>|
>>| If you take route #2, the phone is (should be) unlocked from that
>>| carrier upon final payment to them (end of your contract) OR upon
>>| request during the contract (but you have to pay the remaining balance o
>>| the phone).
>>|
> So it isn't "free" really. I presume from your description that they
> conceal what part of the monthly payment is paying off the 'phone, and
> what part is for the service provision. (I _think_ our [UK and EU]
> legislators clamped down on that.)

It's in the fine print, it's always been in the fine print (it's also
broken out on your bill); but people don't read all that closely.
Historically (pre-2012 or so) there were FAR more issues with the manner
in which carriers "locked" the phones to their network (and wouldn't let
you leave, even post-contract).

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Newyana2 wrote on 26/3/24 5:13 am:

<Snip>

> That's a good question. The technology and politics are
> moving fast. In the US people are outraged that insurance
> companies are jacking up rates based on spying. So where
> will that go? Historically it's mostly a case of exploitation through
> obscurity. If people have to be experts to avoid spying then the
> rare outliers don't matter. Most people will be exploitable. I have
> seen details about some cars online, but so far it's hard to find
> clear facts. So how many people will tear apart their dhasboard
> or back seat to remove a transmitter? And what if that makes the
> lights stop working?

And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your Vehicle's
Warranty??
--
Daniel

On 2024-03-24, Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> wrote:
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>>> https://itsfoss.com/linux-phones/
>
>>Awesome, I might look at getting one.
>
> Read the comments under the article, mostly negative, for a reason.
>
> -jw-
>
You can buy a phone compatible with LineageOS and install that
https://lineageos.org/

--
Simon

RLU: 222126

"Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

|
| And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your Vehicle's
| Warranty??

Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be
clarified. Are there such warranty issues with cars? A lot
of electrical appliances say the warranty is void if
you open the case. Cars are different. Removing a
camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do
with a transmission failing early. I've done the brakes
and oil changes on my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't
be refused warranty service on that score. But it's
possible that companies will try to use such tricks.

In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies
don't want court cases. I remember reading a great
example of the premise some years ago: Companies
could put special sensors in wheel rims that check something
like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't confirm that
you have their special overpriced tires then they could
disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
They could just give technical reasons why they can't be
sure of safety issues without confirming tire specs. Printer
companies are already doing just that and so far they haven't
been stopped.

Newyana2 wrote on 26/03/2024 11:41 pm:
> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
> | | And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your
> Vehicle's | Warranty??
>
> Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be clarified. Are
> there such warranty issues with cars? A lot of electrical appliances
> say the warranty is void if you open the case. Cars are different.
> Removing a camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do with a
> transmission failing early. I've done the brakes and oil changes on
> my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't be refused warranty service on
> that score. But it's possible that companies will try to use such
> tricks.
>
> In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies don't want
> court cases. I remember reading a great example of the premise some
> years ago: Companies could put special sensors in wheel rims that
> check something like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't
> confirm that you have their special overpriced tires then they could
> disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
> official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
> They could just give technical reasons why they can't be sure of
> safety issues without confirming tire specs.

Maybe after 750,000 revolutions, the tyre KNOWS it's due for a
'Rotation' (Front to Back, Left to Right) so the car lets you know ....
and lets you know ..... and lets you ................!!

> Printer companies are already doing just that and so far they
> haven't been stopped.
> --
Daniel

On 3/27/24 00:12, Daniel65 wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote on 26/03/2024 11:41 pm:
>> "Daniel65" <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>>
>> | | And how long before 'removing the transmitter' VOIDS your
>> Vehicle's | Warranty??
>>
>> Indeed. That's one of the issues that needs to be clarified. Are
>> there such warranty issues with cars? A lot of electrical appliances
>> say the warranty is void if you open the case. Cars are different.
>> Removing a camera to spy on car occupants has nothing to do with a
>> transmission failing early. I've done the brakes and oil changes on
>> my current car. I'm sure I wouldn't be refused warranty service on
>> that score. But it's possible that companies will try to use such
>> tricks.
>>
>> In the past it's usually been passive control. Companies don't want
>> court cases. I remember reading a great example of the premise some
>> years ago: Companies could put special sensors in wheel rims that
>> check something like an RFID tag in tires. If Toyota, say, can't
>> confirm that you have their special overpriced tires then they could
>> disable some functionality, claiming it's not safe without the
>> official tires. They wouldn't even have to claim DMCA infringement.
>> They could just give technical reasons why they can't be sure of
>> safety issues without confirming tire specs.
>
> Maybe after 750,000 revolutions, the tyre KNOWS it's due for a
> 'Rotation' (Front to Back, Left to Right) so the car lets you know ....
> and lets you know ..... and lets you ................!!
>
>> Printer companies are already doing just that and so far they
>> haven't been stopped.
>> --
> Daniel

x-post snipped

Every time I tow the garbage bins out along my 3000 ft. driveway with
the seat belts off at about 10-15 km/h my 2018 Subaru honks its brains
out at me continuously. My 2008 Tundra only a few times and then it
shuts up as it should because after a few 'annunciations' it SHOULD be
obvious that I do NOT WANT to put seat-belts on. ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS DO NOT BELONG TO CLERKS. Some of the einsteins in automotive
design cubicles are so pucking stupid that if I were like them I'd want
to wear my pants on my head! They should instead spend their time on
seeing to it that their *$5 chinese chips on wheels* have spring loaded
windows that open and seat-belts that automatically unlock when a car
with an entire family in it slides into water. They could also louver
headlamps to prevent them from blinding oncoming traffic. Their idiotic
'features' prevent me from jumping out of my car in the event of a
brake-failure at the top of a long downhill or from shutting all lights
off while trying to egress a x-fire zone between two warring monkey gangs.