Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > chi.internet > #3544 > unrolled thread

I'm done with Twitter

Back to article view | Back to chi.internet

Contents

  I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-04 12:11 -0700
    Re: I'm done with Twitter smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2016-07-04 19:16 -0500
      Re: I'm done with Twitter Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2016-07-05 15:17 +0000
      Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-05 11:17 -0700
        Re: I'm done with Twitter smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2016-07-05 20:53 -0500
          Re: I'm done with Twitter Michele <eatshitanddie@spammers.com> - 2016-07-05 22:34 -0500
            Re: I'm done with Twitter Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2016-07-06 15:46 +0000
              Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-06 09:35 -0700
          Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-06 09:38 -0700
            Re: I'm done with Twitter smr <me@shawnritchie.com> - 2016-07-06 19:23 -0500
              Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-06 22:11 -0700
                Re: I'm done with Twitter Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2016-07-07 15:28 +0000
                  Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-07 12:05 -0700
                  Re: I'm done with Twitter Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2016-07-08 15:38 +0000
                    Re: I'm done with Twitter barbie gee <booger@nosespam.com> - 2016-07-08 20:36 -0500
                    Re: I'm done with Twitter Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2016-07-09 02:19 +0000
                    Re: I'm done with Twitter Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2016-07-09 11:35 +0000
                      Re: I'm done with Twitter Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> - 2016-07-09 18:50 -0700
                      Re: I'm done with Twitter Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2016-07-10 04:36 +0000
                        Re: I'm done with Twitter Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2016-07-10 11:20 +0000
                          Re: I'm done with Twitter core <core@pt40.net> - 2016-07-10 11:11 -0500
                        Re: I'm done with Twitter Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2016-07-11 00:55 +0000
                          Re: I'm done with Twitter Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> - 2016-07-11 19:05 +0000
                            Re: I'm done with Twitter Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> - 2016-07-12 14:31 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#3544 — I'm done with Twitter

What a waste of network bandwidth and
holy god are people stupid.  It's like
reading thousands of smrs and Kermans 
streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.  
For what purpose does anyone actually use
Twitter?  It's worse than TV.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3545

On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> What a waste of network bandwidth and
> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
> For what purpose does anyone actually use
> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>

Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were 
getting along with Twitter.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3546

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>>
> 
> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were 
> getting along with Twitter.

Ha!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3547

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> > What a waste of network bandwidth and
> > holy god are people stupid.  It's like
> > reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
> > streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
> > For what purpose does anyone actually use
> > Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
> >
> 
> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were 
> getting along with Twitter.
> 
> -- 
> smr

This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3555

On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
>> getting along with Twitter.
>>
>> --
>> smr
>
> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
>

Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way 
down.

Okay. Sure. Right.

Post again about your third week of debating what kind of shitty food 
you want to dump on the homeless near your grocery store because you're 
too much of a fascist, know-it-all asshole to just hand them cash or, 
more likely, let the whole thread fade away so you don't have to admit 
that you never intended to, nor will you, help them in any way at all ever.

Because that shit is scintillating, high-value content.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3556

On 7/5/2016 8:53 PM, smr wrote:
> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
>>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
>>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
>>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
>>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
>>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
>>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
>>> getting along with Twitter.
>>>
>>> --
>>> smr
>>
>> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
>> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
>>
>
> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way
> down.
>
> Okay. Sure. Right.
>
> Post again about your third week of debating what kind of shitty food
> you want to dump on the homeless near your grocery store because you're
> too much of a fascist, know-it-all asshole to just hand them cash or,
> more likely, let the whole thread fade away so you don't have to admit
> that you never intended to, nor will you, help them in any way at all ever.
>
> Because that shit is scintillating, high-value content.
>


Needs a click-baity title to go with.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3557

Michele <eatshitanddie@spammers.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/2016 8:53 PM, smr wrote:
>> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
>>>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
>>>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
>>>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
>>>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
>>>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
>>>> getting along with Twitter.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> smr
>>>
>>> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
>>> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way
>> down.
>>
>> Okay. Sure. Right.
>>
>> Post again about your third week of debating what kind of shitty food
>> you want to dump on the homeless near your grocery store because you're
>> too much of a fascist, know-it-all asshole to just hand them cash or,
>> more likely, let the whole thread fade away so you don't have to admit
>> that you never intended to, nor will you, help them in any way at all ever.
>>
>> Because that shit is scintillating, high-value content.
>
> Needs a click-baity title to go with.

10 best topics to make people stop reading your blog!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3558

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-5, Geoff Gass wrote:
> Michele <eatshitanddie@spammers.com> wrote:
> > On 7/5/2016 8:53 PM, smr wrote:
> >> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> >>>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> >>>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
> >>>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
> >>>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
> >>>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
> >>>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
> >>>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
> >>>> getting along with Twitter.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> smr
> >>>
> >>> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
> >>> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Okay. Sure. Right.
> >>
> >> Post again about your third week of debating what kind of shitty food
> >> you want to dump on the homeless near your grocery store because you're
> >> too much of a fascist, know-it-all asshole to just hand them cash or,
> >> more likely, let the whole thread fade away so you don't have to admit
> >> that you never intended to, nor will you, help them in any way at all ever.
> >>
> >> Because that shit is scintillating, high-value content.
> >
> > Needs a click-baity title to go with.
> 
> 10 best topics to make people stop reading your blog!

You're hired for my website!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3559

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> > On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> >> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> >>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
> >>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
> >>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
> >>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
> >>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
> >>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
> >> getting along with Twitter.
> >>
> >> --
> >> smr
> >
> > This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
> > like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
> >
> 
> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way 
> down.
> 
> Okay. Sure. Right.

At least I write in complete sentences and string them together
to form some coherent thought despite how unpleasant that might
make you feel.  Try doing that with 135 characters.  Twitter
was designed for morons, most of whom can't even spell.
Morons rule!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3561

On 7/6/16 11:38 AM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
>> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
>>>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
>>>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
>>>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
>>>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
>>>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
>>>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
>>>> getting along with Twitter.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> smr
>>>
>>> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
>>> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way
>> down.
>>
>> Okay. Sure. Right.
>
> At least I write in complete sentences and string them together
> to form some coherent thought despite how unpleasant that might
> make you feel.  Try doing that with 135 characters.  Twitter
> was designed for morons, most of whom can't even spell.
> Morons rule!
>

Quelle surprise, dickhead is also a language prescriptivist.

Shocker.

-- 
smr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3562

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> On 7/6/16 11:38 AM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:00:02 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> >> On 7/5/16 1:17 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 7:20:01 PM UTC-5, smr wrote:
> >>>> On 7/4/16 2:11 PM, Crawford Sausage Company wrote:
> >>>>> What a waste of network bandwidth and
> >>>>> holy god are people stupid.  It's like
> >>>>> reading thousands of smrs and Kermans
> >>>>> streaming nonsense at a never ending rate.
> >>>>> For what purpose does anyone actually use
> >>>>> Twitter?  It's worse than TV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. Everybody here was very concerned about whether or not you were
> >>>> getting along with Twitter.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> smr
> >>>
> >>> This was Twitter before there was a twitter and people
> >>> like you were the first idiots to pollute a network.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, because your posts, on the other hand, are pure signal all the way
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Okay. Sure. Right.
> >
> > At least I write in complete sentences and string them together
> > to form some coherent thought despite how unpleasant that might
> > make you feel.  Try doing that with 135 characters.  Twitter
> > was designed for morons, most of whom can't even spell.
> > Morons rule!
> >
> 
> Quelle surprise, dickhead is also a language prescriptivist.

Yes, I am a snob when it comes to writing.  Twitter was designed
for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
has become so popular.  Reading people babble like that reminds
me of Lincoln Park zoo watching  apes interact with each other.
The zoo is fun to visit once in awhile but then it gets old 
and boring.

Someone should teach an ape to twitter.  Bet he'd have a million
followers like  Kim has.  I wonder if Kim can write a complete
paragraph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3563

Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> wrote:
> Twitter was designed
> for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
> has become so popular.

no, it was designed based on the message length of SMS.  when it started,
people usually sent and received via SMS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3564

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 10:30:02 AM UTC-5, Geoff Gass wrote:
> Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> wrote:
> > Twitter was designed
> > for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
> > has become so popular.
> 
> no, it was designed based on the message length of SMS.  when it started,
> people usually sent and received via SMS.

SMS is an outcrop of paging where coded messages were fine since
it was 1-1 communication.  Twitter expanded it to 1-n networks which 
appeals to the stupid.  Since there are so many stupid people Twitter 
has seen great success.  It's funny reading an article in the newspaper
where they reprint tweets from god knows who and they are always
always completely retarded.  There hasn't been an insightful
tweet ever.  It only takes one instance to prove this hypothesis wrong.

The guy who tweeted Rahm's first campaign was interesting for
the first day or so but even that got stupid.  Not sure if he
even bothered with the second Rahm run.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3566

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
> Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> wrote:
>> Twitter was designed
>> for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
>> has become so popular.
> 
> no, it was designed based on the message length of SMS.  when it started,
> people usually sent and received via SMS.

sent and received posts from a website over text messaging?

Not trolling here either- that twitter shit has never made a lick of sense 
to me at all, ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3568

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, Cydrome Leader wrote:

> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>> Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> wrote:
>>> Twitter was designed
>>> for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
>>> has become so popular.
>>
>> no, it was designed based on the message length of SMS.  when it started,
>> people usually sent and received via SMS.
>
> sent and received posts from a website over text messaging?
>
> Not trolling here either- that twitter shit has never made a lick of sense
> to me at all, ever.
>

Me neither.
But I'm old, so I figured that was the problem, not that it's just 
basically stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3569

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>> Crawford Sausage Company <mea@brandylion.com> wrote:
>>> Twitter was designed
>>> for people who can barely write a sentence which is why it
>>> has become so popular.
>> 
>> no, it was designed based on the message length of SMS.  when it started,
>> people usually sent and received via SMS.
>
> sent and received posts from a website over text messaging?

pretty much

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3570

Cydrome Leader <presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:

> sent and received posts from a website over text messaging?

> Not trolling here either- that twitter shit has never made a lick of sense 
> to me at all, ever.


I think (but not sure), when they started, it was the only way to send an
sms message to multiple people. But I think (again not sure) it only worked
if there was a mention.

So like a tweet like this:

AHK is a pud puller. #mamasboy

It would only show up on my timeline, or whatever they call it, if you were
following me on the website or application.

If the message was sent like this:

AHK is a pud puller. @cydrome @geoff @anderson #mamasboy

The 3 of you would get it as an sms, again if you were following me and
permitted twitter to send it as sms. Remember when they started, most people
didn't have unlimited messaging.

By the way, I'm too lazy to stick this tidbit as a follow up to whatever
thread there was but a recent discussion about the phones and lack of it
having an FM radio, even though I thought it was there in the gps/wifi chip,
just not enabled, this article popped up (on twitter, heh) about that very
subject.

http://www.wired.com/2016/07/phones-fm-chips-radio-smartphone

If you are too lazy to click, it appears from that article that any phone
(including iPhones) that support LTE has an FM radio in it, but again, it's
just not enabled. The main reason appears to be that it might undercut the
music pay services.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3573

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 6:35:04 AM UTC-5, Bruce Esquibel wrote:

> AHK is a pud puller. #mamasboy

#mamasboy evolved to become r/chicago on Reddit.

And now you know the rest of the story ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3574

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:
> 
>> sent and received posts from a website over text messaging?
> 
>> Not trolling here either- that twitter shit has never made a lick of sense 
>> to me at all, ever.
> 
> 
> I think (but not sure), when they started, it was the only way to send an
> sms message to multiple people. But I think (again not sure) it only worked
> if there was a mention.
> 
> So like a tweet like this:
> 
> AHK is a pud puller. #mamasboy
> 
> It would only show up on my timeline, or whatever they call it, if you were
> following me on the website or application.
> 
> If the message was sent like this:
> 
> AHK is a pud puller. @cydrome @geoff @anderson #mamasboy
> 
> The 3 of you would get it as an sms, again if you were following me and
> permitted twitter to send it as sms. Remember when they started, most people
> didn't have unlimited messaging.

It looked like this twiter shit was founded in 2006. I'm a late phone 
adopter and I know for a fact even an old phone from then could do group 
texting with no problem and that unlimited (or just a huge number of them) 
wasn't expensive or hard to get. If twiter was from 1996, some of this 
might make sense. Even my 1997 phone could receive text messages. You 
could not reply, and could not see where they came from, but they did show 
up, many years after I got the phone.

Not trying to call you a liar, but like how a TIF district works, it just 
never makes sense.

> By the way, I'm too lazy to stick this tidbit as a follow up to whatever
> thread there was but a recent discussion about the phones and lack of it
> having an FM radio, even though I thought it was there in the gps/wifi chip,
> just not enabled, this article popped up (on twitter, heh) about that very
> subject.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/2016/07/phones-fm-chips-radio-smartphone
> 
> If you are too lazy to click, it appears from that article that any phone
> (including iPhones) that support LTE has an FM radio in it, but again, it's
> just not enabled. The main reason appears to be that it might undercut the
> music pay services.

I was waiting for some magic updae to allow FM radio on the galaxy s5, but 
it never seeme to happen. Can't say that I really miss the radio, unless 
it's the dusties AM station.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3575

Cydrome Leader <presence@mungepanix.com> wrote:

> It looked like this twiter shit was founded in 2006. I'm a late phone 
> adopter and I know for a fact even an old phone from then could do group 
> texting with no problem and that unlimited (or just a huge number of them) 
> wasn't expensive or hard to get. If twiter was from 1996, some of this 
> might make sense. Even my 1997 phone could receive text messages. You 
> could not reply, and could not see where they came from, but they did show 
> up, many years after I got the phone.

No, I have to kind of disagree with the state of SMS in 2006.

I'm pretty sure if you can track down some advertising for phone plans, text
messaging was an option service and or had restrictions like 50 per month or
200 if included in a plan. Costs varied between incoming and outgoing too.

Remember the iPhone only came out in 2007 which made texting easier with the
on screen keyboard rather than the abc-1 keyboard bit (and also except for
the Blackberry).

I also remember as late as 2009 or 2010, the europeans were somewhat
surprised when travelling here that unlimited sms wasn't included with many
plans. Over there, nearly any monthly plan was unlimited text as part of it
and were snickering about how the americans had to pay 10 cents or so each
if they used up the 300 (at the time) package.

> Not trying to call you a liar, but like how a TIF district works, it just 
> never makes sense.

I still could be totally wrong but it was always in the back of my mind that
twitters start centered around SMS. It was a cross between the phone service
and a web site. You and your buddies could sit all day on the site sending
text messages to each other free of charge. If you wanted to get their
attention, by adding that @username would get it out SMS if they set it up
that way.

But I still could be totally wrong, for all I know they could of started out
as a porn site where the gals were sending out slutty messages via SMS and
at some point decided to drop the porn angle.


> I was waiting for some magic updae to allow FM radio on the galaxy s5, but 
> it never seeme to happen. Can't say that I really miss the radio, unless 
> it's the dusties AM station.

I still don't think enabling them is just a software fix. 

To me, unless they designed the phone to use that feature at some future
date, I really don't think it's likely it would work if they did patch the
firmware.

The ones that do have it (FM radio), the headphones act as the antenna and
can only be used with the headphones. Unplug the headphones to use the
internal speaker, you'll just get hiss.

They way they are trying to shrink the phones, make them thinner while
extending battery life and adding in other things, that one foil trace
between the chip and jack might not be there at all. It seems to me it would
be the first one to go or never put there in the first place unless they
were planning on it later on.

I'm not even sure that article is correct, when I read about that Broadcom
or Qualcomm chip having the fm radio in, I thought they said it was the chip
for the wifi/bluetooth stuff, not the LTE/GPS one. The only product in the
Apple lineup with the FM radio enabled is an iPod, which doesn't have any
cellular in it at all.

So if they got that wrong, the bit about it just being a firmware update to
enable it isn't right either, unless there is a mechanical modification
made.

Besides I never read or heard about an FM radio mod from the guys that do
the jailbreaks for the iPhones (or rooting on the andriod stuff). Usually
those guys examine all the hidden shit in there so there are apps that do
things people didn't think were possible.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | chi.internet

csiph-web