On 4/28/2024 7:48 AM, bad sector wrote:

>
> You may not understand it but the fact remains that there *is* a lot of
> confusion and my take on it is that the reason for the confusion is
> shitty design. There have been and continue occurring thousands of live
> mic or phone incidents EVEN with well designed idiot-proof LOW-TECH
> devices. Digital crap should have either a hard on/off switch that does
> nothing else AND an easily removable battery. My flexphone has half a
> dozen ways to be turned off and even when I will know them all by heart
> they WILL NOT suffice. Having to trust that the OS has turned the mic or
> itself off is not the answer

I can understand the frustration. One reason that I don't normally
use a cellphone is because they're natural spyware devices. A second
reason is the complexity and lockdown. Both Google and Apple are
controlling their phones in ways that should be illegal. It's like buying
a toaster that only toasts Wonder Bread and calls home to report your
toasting operation... and that can't be disabled. Every time I turn my
cellphone on now I get a regular flurry of warnings that I should
enable Google something or other. That started when I accidentally
allowed it to update. It's a madhouse of commercial sleaze.

Another issue relating to your trouble is simply that no one really
wants to turn their cellphone off. So it's designed to require some effort.
Turned off, you can't get calls. I only turn mine on when I want to
make a call, and the battery charge lasts for months. But I don't know
anyone else who does that. Everyone I know leaves it on constantly,
letting it "sleep" when it's left idle. But cellphones don't actually
sleep.
Getting a call requires constant pings of nearby towers. So the cellphone
is always on. It's just the screen lights that go out.

Given that scenario, having the mic turned on, or other such
intrusions, are a security issue, not an on/off issue, under typical
usage conditions.

The ZFlip lists several methods to turn it off. But the first and
primary one is what people have been saying: "The easiest way
to turn off the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5 is to press and hold the
side and volume down buttons for about 3-5 seconds. When the
power settings show up, select Power off."

https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-turn-off-samsung-galaxy-z-flip-5-3350350/

That's exactly how my TCL works. Though I only need to hold
the lower right button, whatever that's called. There's no ambiguity.
So the question is, do you REALLY want to turn it off? If so then you
can do that and not worry about the mic, but you won't receive
calls.

On 4/28/2024 7:48 AM, bad sector wrote:

>
> You may not understand it but the fact remains that there *is* a lot of
> confusion and my take on it is that the reason for the confusion is
> shitty design. There have been and continue occurring thousands of live
> mic or phone incidents EVEN with well designed idiot-proof LOW-TECH
> devices. Digital crap should have either a hard on/off switch that does
> nothing else AND an easily removable battery. My flexphone has half a
> dozen ways to be turned off and even when I will know them all by heart
> they WILL NOT suffice. Having to trust that the OS has turned the mic or
> itself off is not the answer

I can understand the frustration. One reason that I don't normally
use a cellphone is because they're natural spyware devices. A second
reason is the complexity and lockdown. Both Google and Apple are
controlling their phones in ways that should be illegal. It's like buying
a toaster that only toasts Wonder Bread and calls home to report your
toasting operation... and that can't be disabled. Every time I turn my
cellphone on now I get a regular flurry of warnings that I should
enable Google something or other. That started when I accidentally
allowed it to update. It's a madhouse of commercial sleaze.

Another issue relating to your trouble is simply that no one really
wants to turn their cellphone off. So it's designed to require some effort.
Turned off, you can't get calls. I only turn mine on when I want to
make a call, and the battery charge lasts for months. But I don't know
anyone else who does that. Everyone I know leaves it on constantly,
letting it "sleep" when it's left idle. But cellphones don't actually
sleep.
Getting a call requires constant pings of nearby towers. So the cellphone
is always on. It's just the screen lights that go out.

Given that scenario, having the mic turned on, or other such
intrusions, are a security issue, not an on/off issue, under typical
usage conditions.

The ZFlip lists several methods to turn it off. But the first and
primary one is what people have been saying: "The easiest way
to turn off the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5 is to press and hold the
side and volume down buttons for about 3-5 seconds. When the
power settings show up, select Power off."

https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-turn-off-samsung-galaxy-z-flip-5-3350350/

That's exactly how my TCL works. Though I only need to hold
the lower right button, whatever that's called. There's no ambiguity.
So the question is, do you REALLY want to turn it off? If so then you
can do that and not worry about the mic, but you won't receive
calls.

On 28.04.24 14:56, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 7:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
>
>>
>> You may not understand it but the fact remains that there *is* a lot of
>> confusion and my take on it is that the reason for the confusion is
>> shitty design. There have been and continue occurring thousands of live
>> mic or phone incidents EVEN with well designed idiot-proof LOW-TECH
>> devices. Digital crap should have either a hard on/off switch that does
>> nothing else AND an easily removable battery. My flexphone has half a
>> dozen ways to be turned off and even when I will know them all by heart
>> they WILL NOT suffice. Having to trust that the OS has turned the mic or
>> itself off is not the answer
>
> I can understand the frustration. One reason that I don't normally
> use a cellphone is because they're natural spyware devices. A second
> reason is the complexity and lockdown.

Why are you writing in this group?
You are lacking any credibility. And you try to spread conspiracy
theories of the worst kind like the thread starter.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 27.04.24 11:16, Theo wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Bullshit!
>> The OS is not booted when the Android is turned off.
>
> AIUI it is, kind of.

Even not a kind of.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 4/28/2024 10:00 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> Why are you writing in this group?
> You are lacking any credibility. And you try to spread conspiracy
> theories of the worst kind like the thread starter.
>

No point in shooting the messenger. If you use
a cellphone turned on then you ARE being tracked.
Many of the apps can't be removed. Downloading of
updates can't be stopped as far as I know. What functions
can be controlled are very difficult to find. So it would
take a great deal of expertise to really control a cellphone.

This is not about conspiracy theories. There are two major
cellphone OS makers. Google and Apple. Both tightly
control the product. Both have long histories of greed and
dishonesty. Google is primarily an advertising
and data collection company. Many cellphone apps make
money by selling personal data, because no one wants to
pay for apps.

So before posting hysterical accusations,
maybe read up on the facts for yourself. But I can see
from your other posts that you like to argue and insult
people, so maybe you really don't want to know facts.
Facts can be a very pesky obstacle to indignant dogma. :)

On 28.04.24 18:21, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 10:00 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> Why are you writing in this group?
>> You are lacking any credibility. And you try to spread conspiracy
>> theories of the worst kind like the thread starter.
>>
>
> No point in shooting the messenger. If you use
> a cellphone turned on then you ARE being tracked.

How do you think your service provider could bill you otherwise correctly?

> Many of the apps can't be removed. Downloading of
> updates can't be stopped as far as I know. What functions

Sure they can be stopped.

> can be controlled are very difficult to find. So it would
> take a great deal of expertise to really control a cellphone.

You better do not use one.

> This is not about conspiracy theories. There are two major
> cellphone OS makers. Google and Apple. Both tightly
> control the product. Both have long histories of greed and
> dishonesty. Google is primarily an advertising
> and data collection company. Many cellphone apps make
> money by selling personal data, because no one wants to
> pay for apps.

Do you have material news or something that is not known for at least 20
years?

> So before posting hysterical accusations,
> maybe read up on the facts for yourself. But I can see
> from your other posts that you like to argue and insult
> people, so maybe you really don't want to know facts.
> Facts can be a very pesky obstacle to indignant dogma. :)

*You* are dogmatic. You state you have no knowledge about smartphones
which I have to admit is obvious. Why are you posting such trivial
things which are at least partially wrong in a technical group?

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 4/28/2024 12:46 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> *You* are dogmatic. You state you have no knowledge about smartphones
> which I have to admit is obvious. Why are you posting such trivial
> things which are at least partially wrong in a technical group?
>
As I thought. You're bitter and just want to argue.
I'm sorry that life is not oging well for you, but no one
benefits from an insult contest.

On 28.04.24 21:40, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 12:46 PM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>
>> *You* are dogmatic. You state you have no knowledge about smartphones
>> which I have to admit is obvious. Why are you posting such trivial
>> things which are at least partially wrong in a technical group?
>>
> As I thought. You're bitter and just want to argue.
> I'm sorry that life is not oging well for you, but no one
> benefits from an insult contest.

You are contributing nothing of value. Sorry, dear. I do not insult you.
I tell you the "truth" and plain facts. And for years you are telling
the same trivial things.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 4/28/24 08:57, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 7:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
>
>>
>> You may not understand it but the fact remains that there *is* a lot
>> of confusion and my take on it is that the reason for the confusion is
>> shitty design. There have been and continue occurring thousands of
>> live mic or phone incidents EVEN with well designed idiot-proof
>> LOW-TECH devices. Digital crap should have either a hard on/off switch
>> that does nothing else AND an easily removable battery. My flexphone
>> has half a dozen ways to be turned off and even when I will know them
>> all by heart they WILL NOT suffice. Having to trust that the OS has
>> turned the mic or itself off is not the answer
>
>    I can understand the frustration. One reason that I don't normally
> use a cellphone is because they're natural spyware devices. A second
> reason is the complexity and lockdown. Both Google and Apple are
> controlling their phones in ways that should be illegal. It's like buying
> a toaster that only toasts Wonder Bread and calls home to report your
> toasting operation... and that can't be disabled. Every time I turn my
> cellphone on now I get a regular flurry of warnings that I should
> enable Google something or other. That started when I accidentally
> allowed it to update. It's a madhouse of commercial sleaze.
>
>   Another issue relating to your trouble is simply that no one really
> wants to turn their cellphone off. So it's designed to require some effort.
> Turned off, you can't get calls. I only turn mine on when I want to
> make a call, and the battery charge lasts for months. But I don't know
> anyone else who does that. Everyone I know leaves it on constantly,
>  letting it "sleep" when it's left idle. But cellphones don't actually
> sleep.
> Getting a call requires constant pings of nearby towers. So the cellphone
> is always on. It's just the screen lights that go out.
>
>   Given that scenario, having the mic turned on, or other such
> intrusions, are a security issue, not an on/off issue, under typical
> usage conditions.
>
>   The ZFlip lists several methods to turn it off. But the first and
> primary one is what people have been saying: "The easiest way
> to turn off the Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5 is to press and hold the
> side and volume down buttons for about 3-5 seconds. When the
> power settings show up, select Power off."
>
> https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-turn-off-samsung-galaxy-z-flip-5-3350350/

I know how to turn it off, for a number of reasons I finally settled on
the 3-step sequence beginning with sliding down the home page to the
notifications page. The entire OS sucks, being incoherent from A to Z.

>  That's exactly how my TCL works. Though I only need to hold
> the lower right button, whatever that's called. There's no ambiguity.
> So the question is, do you REALLY want to turn it off? If so then you
> can do that and not worry about the mic, but you won't receive
> calls.

Not concerned about not receiving any calls, I've had enough spam
in the few months since I bought this zFlip5 to warrant just asking
callers to send me either a texto or an email. I'm actually looking for
a way to get my provider to not forward any voice messages at all
BEGINNING with their own fucking voice-mail or texto spam. Anyway, not
to diverge into futile tergiversation what interest me is not only ease
of turning off, a hard OFF switch and one-hand battery removal but
EQUALLY instant and unmistakable feedback confirming whenever the unit
is powered but in fact OFF.

On 4/28/24 10:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> On 28.04.24 14:56, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 7:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You may not understand it but the fact remains that there *is* a lot of
>>> confusion and my take on it is that the reason for the confusion is
>>> shitty design. There have been and continue occurring thousands of live
>>> mic or phone incidents EVEN with well designed idiot-proof LOW-TECH
>>> devices. Digital crap should have either a hard on/off switch that does
>>> nothing else AND an easily removable battery. My flexphone has half a
>>> dozen ways to be turned off and even when I will know them all by heart
>>> they WILL NOT suffice. Having to trust that the OS has turned the mic or
>>> itself off is not the answer
>>
>> I can understand the frustration. One reason that I don't normally
>> use a cellphone is because they're natural spyware devices. A second
>> reason is the complexity and lockdown.
>
> Why are you writing in this group?
> You are lacking any credibility. And you try to spread conspiracy
> theories of the worst kind like the thread starter.

I get a kick out of barbie-boys living in la-la land; if more positive
and verifiable device controls including easy battery removal are not a
serious threat to the snooping scum of the earth then why do they shriek
in panic as if the offender had just killed their mother every time one
mentions such changes? Why would easily removable batteries be such a
bogeyman to some who claim to have no use for them if others do? Are
they paranoid and fear that the batteries might pop out and never come
back? The digital giants need to be trimmed back in terms of yards, not
millimeters; so far legislation is scarce partly because legislators are
traditionally just barely on the legal side of the septic tank and know
shit about technology ...but the situation is evolving, they comply
with the public will or soon enter oblivion.

--
“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its
thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.”
― Thucydides

bad sector, 2024-04-25 00:55:

> The net is full of people having issues with phones they only thought
> were OFF. My android Zflip is even worse that a simple conventional
> design. Most times I turn it OFF/ON to be sure, there being no obvious,
> bulletproof, always in your face, indication which should be a prerequisite.

Well - as long as you did not explicitely did POWER OFF the phone it is
not turned off. And "power off" means you press and HOLD the power
button until a menu appears where you can select to POWER OFF the
device. Just turning the display off by pressing the power buttons
briefly is not enough of course.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 4/29/24 09:02, Arno Welzel wrote:
> bad sector, 2024-04-25 00:55:
>
>> The net is full of people having issues with phones they only thought
>> were OFF. My android Zflip is even worse that a simple conventional
>> design. Most times I turn it OFF/ON to be sure, there being no obvious,
>> bulletproof, always in your face, indication which should be a prerequisite.
>
> Well - as long as you did not explicitely did POWER OFF the phone it is
> not turned off. And "power off" means you press and HOLD the power
> button until a menu appears where you can select to POWER OFF the
> device. Just turning the display off by pressing the power buttons
> briefly is not enough of course.

There has been a bit of misunderstanding since my OP in which I raised
two issues. When I said "they only thought were OFF" I obviously meant
'on-hook' although an unwanted power-on state could in and of itself
also kill you in the wrong situation. After that MY workaround of
powering off TO ASSURE THAT IT IS ON-HOOK clouded the issue I think, but
both issues remain IMO extremely important all the time.

bad sector, 2024-04-30 01:40:

> On 4/29/24 09:02, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> bad sector, 2024-04-25 00:55:
>>
>>> The net is full of people having issues with phones they only thought
>>> were OFF. My android Zflip is even worse that a simple conventional
>>> design. Most times I turn it OFF/ON to be sure, there being no obvious,
>>> bulletproof, always in your face, indication which should be a prerequisite.
>>
>> Well - as long as you did not explicitely did POWER OFF the phone it is
>> not turned off. And "power off" means you press and HOLD the power
>> button until a menu appears where you can select to POWER OFF the
>> device. Just turning the display off by pressing the power buttons
>> briefly is not enough of course.
>
>
> There has been a bit of misunderstanding since my OP in which I raised
> two issues. When I said "they only thought were OFF" I obviously meant
> 'on-hook' although an unwanted power-on state could in and of itself
> also kill you in the wrong situation. After that MY workaround of
> powering off TO ASSURE THAT IT IS ON-HOOK clouded the issue I think, but
> both issues remain IMO extremely important all the time.

I see - you refer to the question if there is a phone call still active
or unintentially started. Yes, unfortunately, smartphones usually don't
have dedicated "hang up" keys any longer except special models intended
to be used by older or disabled people.

However, when the phone app is still in an active call you should
usually also see a notification about this at the top of the screen.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> bad sector, 2024-04-30 01:40:
[...]
> > There has been a bit of misunderstanding since my OP in which I raised
> > two issues. When I said "they only thought were OFF" I obviously meant
> > 'on-hook' although an unwanted power-on state could in and of itself
> > also kill you in the wrong situation. After that MY workaround of
> > powering off TO ASSURE THAT IT IS ON-HOOK clouded the issue I think, but
> > both issues remain IMO extremely important all the time.
>
> I see - you refer to the question if there is a phone call still active
> or unintentially started. Yes, unfortunately, smartphones usually don't
> have dedicated "hang up" keys any longer except special models intended
> to be used by older or disabled people.

Are these scenarios even possible?

(AFAIK,) For a still active phone call: If the remote party 'hangs
up', the connection is terminated and the local phone will be 'on hook'
again.

For an unintentially started phone call: Unless the remote phone keeps
on ringing 'for ever' or switches to voice mail with 'endless'
recording, the call will be terminated at some stage and the local phone
will be 'on hook' again.

FWIW, I don't call or am called all that often (Using a smartphone as
a *phone*, what *will* they think of next! :-)), but I've never had a
situation where the phone was still 'off hook' without me knowing.

> However, when the phone app is still in an active call you should
> usually also see a notification about this at the top of the screen.

I'll have to check how that is on my phone. I normally see the full
screen from the phone app, but have never tested what happens if I make
that go away without hanging up.

On 4/30/24 04:33, Arno Welzel wrote:
> bad sector, 2024-04-30 01:40:
>
>> On 4/29/24 09:02, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> bad sector, 2024-04-25 00:55:
>>>
>>>> The net is full of people having issues with phones they only thought
>>>> were OFF. My android Zflip is even worse that a simple conventional
>>>> design. Most times I turn it OFF/ON to be sure, there being no obvious,
>>>> bulletproof, always in your face, indication which should be a prerequisite.
>>>
>>> Well - as long as you did not explicitely did POWER OFF the phone it is
>>> not turned off. And "power off" means you press and HOLD the power
>>> button until a menu appears where you can select to POWER OFF the
>>> device. Just turning the display off by pressing the power buttons
>>> briefly is not enough of course.
>>
>>
>> There has been a bit of misunderstanding since my OP in which I raised
>> two issues. When I said "they only thought were OFF" I obviously meant
>> 'on-hook' although an unwanted power-on state could in and of itself
>> also kill you in the wrong situation. After that MY workaround of
>> powering off TO ASSURE THAT IT IS ON-HOOK clouded the issue I think, but
>> both issues remain IMO extremely important all the time.
>
> I see - you refer to the question if there is a phone call still active
> or unintentially started. Yes, unfortunately, smartphones usually don't
> have dedicated "hang up" keys any longer except special models intended
> to be used by older or disabled people.
>
> However, when the phone app is still in an active call you should
> usually also see a notification about this at the top of the screen.

In this day and age of (even apolitical) globalization and cultural
babylon it no longer suffices for communication to be understandable,
communication must henceforth be impossible to misunderstand. The phone
(supposedly) is trying to communicate to the user *vitally important*
information at the top of which list figure power and connection or line
states. If this is not an unconditional success at the level of both
facilitation and communication, and IMO it most certainly is not, I can
see two reasons for that: intentional virtualization distancing the user
from real control and awareness or incompetent hardware/software design
by fucktards (of the kind that we see in cars more every day).

On 4/30/24 05:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> bad sector, 2024-04-30 01:40:
> [...]
>>> There has been a bit of misunderstanding since my OP in which I raised
>>> two issues. When I said "they only thought were OFF" I obviously meant
>>> 'on-hook' although an unwanted power-on state could in and of itself
>>> also kill you in the wrong situation. After that MY workaround of
>>> powering off TO ASSURE THAT IT IS ON-HOOK clouded the issue I think, but
>>> both issues remain IMO extremely important all the time.
>>
>> I see - you refer to the question if there is a phone call still active
>> or unintentially started. Yes, unfortunately, smartphones usually don't
>> have dedicated "hang up" keys any longer except special models intended
>> to be used by older or disabled people.
>
> Are these scenarios even possible?
>
> (AFAIK,) For a still active phone call: If the remote party 'hangs
> up', the connection is terminated and the local phone will be 'on hook'
> again.

Once (when we were all driving used Chevvy-II's and Pintos with babies
in cribs or child seats) my sister-in-law got a call from her dad
telling her that they were welcome to visit any time (he lived on the
coast). She and her husband were very happy to hear that. But the old
fart kept failing to hang-up so several minutes after that call one of
them picked up the phone only to hear him say to someone physically
beside him "the Rockafellers are coming visiting".

A phone is also an emergency device, I'm not sure how I would call 911
with a hand also holding by belt as a tourniquet on the other arm,
busted up.

We need helluva more brains and bandwidth is the design and developmenmt
bureaus, les freakin' eye-candy and hype and more robust controls and
unmistakable feedback.

bad sector, 2024-04-30 13:21:

> On 4/30/24 05:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]
>> Are these scenarios even possible?
>>
>> (AFAIK,) For a still active phone call: If the remote party 'hangs
>> up', the connection is terminated and the local phone will be 'on hook'
>> again.
>
> Once (when we were all driving used Chevvy-II's and Pintos with babies
> in cribs or child seats) my sister-in-law got a call from her dad
> telling her that they were welcome to visit any time (he lived on the
> coast). She and her husband were very happy to hear that. But the old
> fart kept failing to hang-up so several minutes after that call one of
> them picked up the phone only to hear him say to someone physically
> beside him "the Rockafellers are coming visiting".

When they did not hang up, yes then this is possible - otherwise not.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> bad sector, 2024-04-30 13:21:
>
> > On 4/30/24 05:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
> >> Are these scenarios even possible?
> >>
> >> (AFAIK,) For a still active phone call: If the remote party 'hangs
> >> up', the connection is terminated and the local phone will be 'on hook'
> >> again.
> >
> > Once (when we were all driving used Chevvy-II's and Pintos with babies
> > in cribs or child seats) my sister-in-law got a call from her dad
> > telling her that they were welcome to visit any time (he lived on the
> > coast). She and her husband were very happy to hear that. But the old
> > fart kept failing to hang-up so several minutes after that call one of
> > them picked up the phone only to hear him say to someone physically
> > beside him "the Rockafellers are coming visiting".
>
> When they did not hang up, yes then this is possible - otherwise not.

But that was a scenario with a normal (not mobile) phone with a
seperate handpiece/receiver (we Dutch call it the 'hoorn' (horn). As I
mentioned, (AFAIK, for the reasons I gave) such a scenario is not
possible for a smartphone (and probably also not for most 'dumb'/feature
phones).

My take is that 'bad sector' just wants to ramble/vent.

On 4/30/24 10:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> bad sector, 2024-04-30 13:21:
>>
>>> On 4/30/24 05:57, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Are these scenarios even possible?
>>>>
>>>> (AFAIK,) For a still active phone call: If the remote party 'hangs
>>>> up', the connection is terminated and the local phone will be 'on hook'
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> Once (when we were all driving used Chevvy-II's and Pintos with babies
>>> in cribs or child seats) my sister-in-law got a call from her dad
>>> telling her that they were welcome to visit any time (he lived on the
>>> coast). She and her husband were very happy to hear that. But the old
>>> fart kept failing to hang-up so several minutes after that call one of
>>> them picked up the phone only to hear him say to someone physically
>>> beside him "the Rockafellers are coming visiting".
>>
>> When they did not hang up, yes then this is possible - otherwise not.
>
> But that was a scenario with a normal (not mobile) phone with a
> seperate handpiece/receiver (we Dutch call it the 'hoorn' (horn). As I
> mentioned, (AFAIK, for the reasons I gave) such a scenario is not
> possible for a smartphone (and probably also not for most 'dumb'/feature
> phones).
>
> My take is that 'bad sector' just wants to ramble/vent.

Not really, what I want is CHANGE. The BlackBerry had not only real
buttons but chicklety ones extremely well engineeered for that positive
feel. My son had one, they *were disappeared* just when I was getting
set to buy one! I had to do with a basic cell-phone with no texto even.
I did what I needed done but a while ago it packed up so I wanted to buy
another one like it but with texto capability. My provider said
"FORGET-IT, we've been keeping your special low-end account for as long
as you phone would last, now it's NOT renewable anymore". So I went and
bought this android zFlip5 but it's a giga-letdown for too many reasons
to mention and I think I will get rid of it. I can live without a
cell-phone, my take is that demand will eventually force design
improvements as well as open source non-proprietary OS'es developed by
units walking on two legs. Meanwhile I call a spade a spade and I will
let no apple, faecesbook or goongle steer my life, they already have way
too much influence on my bowel movements.

tinyurl.com/3s7bkhw7

bad?sector <forgetski@_invalid.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/24 10:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]

> > My take is that 'bad sector' just wants to ramble/vent.
>
> Not really, what I want is CHANGE. The BlackBerry had not only real
> buttons but chicklety ones extremely well engineeered for that positive
> feel. My son had one, they *were disappeared* just when I was getting
> set to buy one! I had to do with a basic cell-phone with no texto even.
> I did what I needed done but a while ago it packed up so I wanted to buy
> another one like it but with texto capability. My provider said
> "FORGET-IT, we've been keeping your special low-end account for as long
> as you phone would last, now it's NOT renewable anymore". So I went and
> bought this android zFlip5 but it's a giga-letdown for too many reasons
> to mention and I think I will get rid of it. I can live without a
> cell-phone, my take is that demand will eventually force design
> improvements as well as open source non-proprietary OS'es developed by
> units walking on two legs. Meanwhile I call a spade a spade and I will
> let no apple, faecesbook or goongle steer my life, they already have way
> too much influence on my bowel movements.
>
> tinyurl.com/3s7bkhw7

As I've said to others with similar needs/wants/complaints:

Buy a 'dumb'/'feature' phone and be done with it. They still have real
keys/ buttons. have SMS capability and can work on modern 4G (and of
course 2G and 3G) networks. Problem solved.

On 2024-04-27 11:16, Theo wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 25.04.24 15:55, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> The charging circuitry is within the battery itself. It controls the
>>>> rate of charge and, in particular, monitors the temperature of the
>>>> cell(s). If it gets too high it will stop the charging. Note though,
>>>> that the connection from the phone's charger socket (lightning, USB, or
>>>> whatever) goes through some of the phone's circuitry, so the phone knows
>>>> the state of charge of its battery. That way its % charge can be
>>>> displayed on the phone's screen, and battery-usage apps can let you know
>>>> what's being used and how long the phone might last before recharging is
>>>> essential.
>>>
>>> The fact that the phone is charging and how full its battery is, is
>>> also displayed/displayable when the phone is switched 'off'.
>>>
>>> Ergo, the phone is never really off. It's either awake or sleeping
>>> during normal use or in cold standby when the user switched it 'off'.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>> The OS is not booted when the Android is turned off.
>
> AIUI it is, kind of. When you plug in the charger with the phone off, the
> phone starts. The bootloader then launches the Android kernel with the flag
> androidboot.mode=charger
>
> Instead of doing the full Android boot, that causes the kernel to launch a
> charger UI application that shows your battery percentage on the screen or
> an animation (which comes from files on your OS partition). The charger app
> doesn't allow you to otherwise interact with the phone and other services
> like the radios aren't running, but the SoC is booted and running software.
> The SoC is also doing standard power management, ie the charging process
> here likely looks very similar to charging when the phone is turned on
> (because it is, in essence).
>
> The full OS services are not running, but the Android kernel and the charger
> app is.
>
> Theo
> (usual caveats: my understanding may be out of date, different vendors may
> do their own thing, etc)

Hum! That's the best explanation I have seen so far. Thank you. It
explains things.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-04-26 22:53, bad sector wrote:
> On 4/25/24 21:28, micky wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:00:53 -0400, bad?sector
>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/25/24 05:29, Nick Cine wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:47:17 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [*] or any other action such as lifting it up, or touching the
>>>>>> screen,
>>>>>> or poking the fingerprint reader.
>>>>>
>>>>> The lifting it up thing is interesting. I wonder if that's done
>>>>> with an
>>>>> accelerometer? If so, it would be checking that too.
>>>>
>>>> A few more comments, but I don't know much about this topic.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Even if a phone is "off", when you plug in a charger, "something
>>>>      happens", so is it really off? I don't know, but how does it
>>>> charge?
>>>>
>>>> 2. The government has, in the past, secretly modified gangster's phones
>>>>      such that they looked to be off, but were secretly still
>>>> transmitting.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The iPhone, I believe, is never off, which, I'm told, is how the
>>>> FindMy
>>>>      sensing works for stolen phones.
>>>>
>>>> How does any of that work? I don't know.
>>>
>>> For one thing the battery should be removable with one hand,
>>> blindfolded, in 3 seconds or less.
>>
>> Wyatt Earp could do that but I can't.
>
> Regulations require it for oxygen masks, if enough people demand it the
> same lawmakers can just as easily require it for cell phones as well.

The EU is planning to regulate user replaceable batteries in phones and
other devices. No mention of doing it "with one hand, blindfolded, in 3
seconds or less", though.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 02.05.24 08:14, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-04-26 22:53, bad sector wrote:
>> On 4/25/24 21:28, micky wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:00:53 -0400, bad?sector
>>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/24 05:29, Nick Cine wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:47:17 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [*] or any other action such as lifting it up, or touching the
>>>>>>> screen,
>>>>>>> or poking the fingerprint reader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lifting it up thing is interesting. I wonder if that's done
>>>>>> with an
>>>>>> accelerometer? If so, it would be checking that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few more comments, but I don't know much about this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Even if a phone is "off", when you plug in a charger, "something
>>>>>      happens", so is it really off? I don't know, but how does it
>>>>> charge?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The government has, in the past, secretly modified gangster's phones
>>>>>      such that they looked to be off, but were secretly still
>>>>> transmitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The iPhone, I believe, is never off, which, I'm told, is how the
>>>>> FindMy
>>>>>      sensing works for stolen phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does any of that work? I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing the battery should be removable with one hand,
>>>> blindfolded, in 3 seconds or less.
>>>
>>> Wyatt Earp could do that but I can't.
>>
>> Regulations require it for oxygen masks, if enough people demand it the
>> same lawmakers can just as easily require it for cell phones as well.
>
> The EU is planning to regulate user replaceable batteries in phones and
> other devices. No mention of doing it "with one hand, blindfolded, in 3
> seconds or less", though.

Readjust your irony sensors, Carlos.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 5/2/24 02:14, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-04-26 22:53, bad sector wrote:
>> On 4/25/24 21:28, micky wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:00:53 -0400, bad?sector
>>> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/25/24 05:29, Nick Cine wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:47:17 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [*] or any other action such as lifting it up, or touching the
>>>>>>> screen,
>>>>>>> or poking the fingerprint reader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lifting it up thing is interesting. I wonder if that's done
>>>>>> with an
>>>>>> accelerometer? If so, it would be checking that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> A few more comments, but I don't know much about this topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Even if a phone is "off", when you plug in a charger, "something
>>>>>      happens", so is it really off? I don't know, but how does it
>>>>> charge?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The government has, in the past, secretly modified gangster's
>>>>> phones
>>>>>      such that they looked to be off, but were secretly still
>>>>> transmitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The iPhone, I believe, is never off, which, I'm told, is how the
>>>>> FindMy
>>>>>      sensing works for stolen phones.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does any of that work? I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing the battery should be removable with one hand,
>>>> blindfolded, in 3 seconds or less.
>>>
>>> Wyatt Earp could do that but I can't.
>>
>> Regulations require it for oxygen masks, if enough people demand it
>> the same lawmakers can just as easily require it for cell phones as well.
>
> The EU is planning to regulate user replaceable batteries in phones and
> other devices. No mention of doing it "with one hand, blindfolded, in 3
> seconds or less", though.

I don't think they know what it means :-)

Seriously, they're way ahead of us in handling foxes in chicken-coops! I
say if a camera can have an easily ejectable battery then so can a
phone. period.

On 5/1/24 06:08, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> bad?sector <forgetski@_invalid.net> wrote:
>> On 4/30/24 10:01, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> My take is that 'bad sector' just wants to ramble/vent.
>>
>> Not really, what I want is CHANGE. The BlackBerry had not only real
>> buttons but chicklety ones extremely well engineeered for that positive
>> feel. My son had one, they *were disappeared* just when I was getting
>> set to buy one! I had to do with a basic cell-phone with no texto even.
>> I did what I needed done but a while ago it packed up so I wanted to buy
>> another one like it but with texto capability. My provider said
>> "FORGET-IT, we've been keeping your special low-end account for as long
>> as you phone would last, now it's NOT renewable anymore". So I went and
>> bought this android zFlip5 but it's a giga-letdown for too many reasons
>> to mention and I think I will get rid of it. I can live without a
>> cell-phone, my take is that demand will eventually force design
>> improvements as well as open source non-proprietary OS'es developed by
>> units walking on two legs. Meanwhile I call a spade a spade and I will
>> let no apple, faecesbook or goongle steer my life, they already have way
>> too much influence on my bowel movements.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/3s7bkhw7
>
> As I've said to others with similar needs/wants/complaints:
>
> Buy a 'dumb'/'feature' phone and be done with it. They still have real
> keys/ buttons. have SMS capability and can work on modern 4G (and of
> course 2G and 3G) networks. Problem solved.

Other than satellite, where I live there are only 3 providers one of
which (Bell) doesn't even have my physical address in their data base so
when I call them they say "you do not exist". The other big one (Telus)
is the only major that is available on paper but with only 4g service
and so poor as to make the entire idea of a cell-phone laughable,
tethering is a joke that NEVER works. The third one is a discount arm of
Telus selling their crap for a few pennies less. I'm only saying this to
put things into perspective. Telus as I said will NOT renew my old
plane-jane service for a plain-jane flip phone fare, I have no choice
but to go with the minimal but hefty price of full 5g and tethering
package very little of which could I use with ANY phone and almost none
of which with less. Bottom line, if I have service at all be that
minimally high-end on paper, I might as well have the phone for it.

Problem 'solving' would BEGIN with stomping on the manufacturers' and
providers' balls with both feet and forcing them into line or lose their
market or licenses. Unfortunately our barbie-boy leader always sits with
his legs crossed.