Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #145304 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 191 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 07:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 10:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2024-12-17 10:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 14:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-17 23:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 22:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 15:08 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:48 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-17 23:12 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 21:42 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 21:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:43 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-17 22:47 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-18 10:35 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:36 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 01:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:39 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 08:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 17:47 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 10:09 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-18 21:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:22 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:46 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 17:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 09:51 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:15 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:00 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 08:31 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:01 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 03:21 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:34 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 21:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-19 02:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 19:20 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-20 10:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 19:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 11:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 19:17 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-20 20:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:54 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:10 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 09:59 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:27 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 19:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:07 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-25 18:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:23 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 13:50 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 13:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2024-12-20 22:08 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 15:58 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 15:02 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:18 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:44 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-21 13:35 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 12:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-22 14:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 13:57 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:41 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:09 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 20:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-23 22:36 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-24 11:27 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:30 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:53 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:42 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:46 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:02 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 14:21 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:05 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:04 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:10 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-24 04:24 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:37 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-26 19:36 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-26 11:52 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 21:03 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 15:00 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2024-12-27 15:22 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 16:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 11:56 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-27 13:45 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-27 14:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:19 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:48 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:41 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:18 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:39 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:31 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:26 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:18 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-01-01 11:59 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 09:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 17:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 18:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-27 23:04 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:13 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-28 15:32 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:44 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 17:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 18:01 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:46 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-27 21:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 22:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 14:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 01:37 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 17:42 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 10:41 -0800
For the record and just the facts, an iPad without an AppleID (was Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 11:38 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> - 2024-12-20 13:47 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-20 22:24 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 14:00 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 18:04 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 17:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:13 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:14 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:45 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 18:50 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI david <this@is.invalid> - 2024-12-20 19:54 -0700
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-20 19:05 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:12 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-21 21:14 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 13:17 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:14 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 02:13 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-27 18:32 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-28 12:44 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-28 14:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:58 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:24 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-28 18:55 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 11:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-29 02:51 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-28 19:43 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2025-01-01 02:50 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-31 19:19 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2025-01-01 23:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-18 08:22 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-18 00:15 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-21 08:53 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-21 00:11 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-21 17:13 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 08:59 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 09:10 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 11:57 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:15 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 10:53 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-12-18 18:55 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-18 00:35 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-18 01:34 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-17 18:16 -0800
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2024-12-22 16:50 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-22 16:58 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 16:49 +0000
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 04:16 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 07:11 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-24 13:38 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-24 14:02 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-12-24 14:52 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-25 18:19 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-12-25 19:49 +0100
Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-12-26 01:25 +0100
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 09:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmnae$3njcc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145675 |
On 2024-12-27 03:56, badgolferman wrote: > Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: >> Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:37:10 +0100 : >> >>> So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you still take >>> pictures and listen to music or open the calendar and address book? Yes? >>> Why? >> >> It's good you finally understand that the iPhone can't even be activated >> without the Internet so NOTHING WHATSOEVER WORKS without the Internet. >> >> You're correct that once you've activated the iPhone on the Internet, then >> (and only then) it can make calls WITHOUT needing the Internet. >> >> Nobody said otherwise. >> >> And yes, the dumb-terminal iPhone can take pictures WITHOUT the Internet. >> Big deal. >> >> So, without the Internet every second of the day, the iPhone still can take >> pictures and make phone calls. Big deal. >> >> But it can't do anything inside the walled garden that people love so much. >> It's just a dumb terminal, Arno. >> >> All I ever wanted was for you to understand what it is. >> And what it is, is a dumb terminal. >> >> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet. >> > > One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a > region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. > Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the > grid. > So just like Maps on iOS... <https://support.apple.com/en-ca/105084>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0ov25fciwpvwh001@reader443.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #145683 |
Alan wrote: >On 2024-12-27 03:56, badgolferman wrote: >>Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: >>>Arno Welzel wrote on Tue, 24 Dec 2024 13:37:10 +0100 : >>> >>>>So - initialize the thing and THEN TURN OFF INTERNET. Can you >>>>still take pictures and listen to music or open the calendar >>>>and address book? Yes? Why? >>> >>>It's good you finally understand that the iPhone can't even be >>>activated without the Internet so NOTHING WHATSOEVER WORKS >>>without the Internet. >>> >>>You're correct that once you've activated the iPhone on the >>>Internet, then (and only then) it can make calls WITHOUT needing >>>the Internet. >>> >>>Nobody said otherwise. >>> >>>And yes, the dumb-terminal iPhone can take pictures WITHOUT the >>>Internet. Big deal. >>> >>>So, without the Internet every second of the day, the iPhone >>>still can take pictures and make phone calls. Big deal. >>> >>>But it can't do anything inside the walled garden that people >>>love so much. It's just a dumb terminal, Arno. >>> >>>All I ever wanted was for you to understand what it is. >>>And what it is, is a dumb terminal. >>> >>>Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the >>>Internet. >>> >> >>One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of >>a region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular >>connection. Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a >>practice in being off the grid. >> > >So just like Maps on iOS... > ><https://support.apple.com/en-ca/105084> Thanks, I didn't know that! But since I don't like the interface of Apple Maps and don't use it, it's no surprise I haven't seen that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmsrg$2lnh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145685 |
badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 17:55:50 -0000 (UTC) : > Thanks, I didn't know that! But since I don't like the interface of > Apple Maps and don't use it, it's no surprise I haven't seen that. There are so many ways to do what badgolferman asked, all of which I've done myself, so I could write a book on how to do offline routing. Most people who recommend OSMAnd don't actually know anything about it. While OSMAnd+/OSMAnd~/OSMAnd (which I'll refer to just as "OSMAnd" here) can do offline routing, the public topo maps for Open Street Maps are horrendously inaccurate - compared to that of the free USGS topo maps. If you're in the middle of the mountains in the US, and biking or hiking, then you can't beat the accuracy of the USGS geoPDFs which can be routed on inside of the free Avenza or Paper Maps apps on both Android and iOS. However, the address lookup for OSMAnd stinks compared to that of Google's online lookup - where I've written entire tutorials on how to solve that. Yet, the walking instructions to get from one building to another in large complexes in OSMAnd is, in my experience, way better than anything out there. So there are times when OSMAnd is good; and times when it's not. Most people don't know any of this though, as where OSMAnd really sucks is in the parks and ski resorts - which I think badgolferman had mentioned. For parks and ski resorts, every US state & national park has a geoPDF which can be read in apps which I've already discussed many times, so in the USA, there's no excuse NOT to have perfect routing inside any park. I've written entire threads on this topic, so suffice to say you load a single free app and it has every US federal, state & local map in it. If someone recommends OSMAnd and yet they're unaware of the USA USGS topo maps and Avenza/PaperMaps and the state/park maps - then they are clueless. -- Note for those on iOS, everything mentioned above works on both platforms, except for OSMAnd (as far as I'm aware there is no OSMAnd app for iOS).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 23:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0tk34lx5fl.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145693 |
On 2024-12-27 19:49, Andrew wrote: > badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 17:55:50 -0000 (UTC) : > >> Thanks, I didn't know that! But since I don't like the interface of >> Apple Maps and don't use it, it's no surprise I haven't seen that. > > There are so many ways to do what badgolferman asked, all of which I've > done myself, so I could write a book on how to do offline routing. > > Most people who recommend OSMAnd don't actually know anything about it. > > While OSMAnd+/OSMAnd~/OSMAnd (which I'll refer to just as "OSMAnd" here) > can do offline routing, the public topo maps for Open Street Maps are > horrendously inaccurate - compared to that of the free USGS topo maps. > > If you're in the middle of the mountains in the US, and biking or hiking, > then you can't beat the accuracy of the USGS geoPDFs which can be routed on > inside of the free Avenza or Paper Maps apps on both Android and iOS. That's pointless to me. I live in Europe, no USGS maps here as far as I know, and open street maps are very accurate here. So do not use a general statement such as "Open Street Maps are horrendously inaccurate". -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkn8qh$3rek1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145702 |
On 2024-12-27 14:04, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-12-27 19:49, Andrew wrote: >> badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 17:55:50 -0000 (UTC) : >> >>> Thanks, I didn't know that! But since I don't like the interface of >>> Apple Maps and don't use it, it's no surprise I haven't seen that. >> >> There are so many ways to do what badgolferman asked, all of which I've >> done myself, so I could write a book on how to do offline routing. >> >> Most people who recommend OSMAnd don't actually know anything about it. >> >> While OSMAnd+/OSMAnd~/OSMAnd (which I'll refer to just as "OSMAnd" here) >> can do offline routing, the public topo maps for Open Street Maps are >> horrendously inaccurate - compared to that of the free USGS topo maps. >> >> If you're in the middle of the mountains in the US, and biking or hiking, >> then you can't beat the accuracy of the USGS geoPDFs which can be >> routed on >> inside of the free Avenza or Paper Maps apps on both Android and iOS. > > That's pointless to me. I live in Europe, no USGS maps here as far as I > know, and open street maps are very accurate here. > > So do not use a general statement such as "Open Street Maps are > horrendously inaccurate". Hey, hey, hey! I claims to have a degree in microbiology, and everyone knows that makes you an expert on mapping software. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vknl5g$1j42$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145702 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 23:04:48 +0100 : >> If you're in the middle of the mountains in the US, and biking or hiking, >> then you can't beat the accuracy of the USGS geoPDFs which can be routed on >> inside of the free Avenza or Paper Maps apps on both Android and iOS. > > That's pointless to me. I live in Europe, no USGS maps here as far as I > know, and open street maps are very accurate here. > > So do not use a general statement such as "Open Street Maps are > horrendously inaccurate". Hi Carlos, I understand your point of view as OSMAnd is maybe the best you can get. But here, in the states, we have far better free offline offroad mapping and routing, not only in the USGS maps but there are very many services which add their layers to the USGS maps (e.g., historical, plants, fires, geology, etc.) such that the Open Street Maps are garbage in comparison. Even so, badgolferman is on iOS (as far as I know) so he can't use OSMAnd (as far as I am aware) so all the other advice applies to him on mapping. Especially if he's going to be at a ski resort or at a government park.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 15:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2oe54lxdbh.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145711 |
On 2024-12-28 02:44, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 23:04:48 +0100 : > >>> If you're in the middle of the mountains in the US, and biking >>> or hiking, then you can't beat the accuracy of the USGS geoPDFs >>> which can be routed on inside of the free Avenza or Paper Maps >>> apps on both Android and iOS. >> >> That's pointless to me. I live in Europe, no USGS maps here as far >> as I know, and open street maps are very accurate here. >> >> So do not use a general statement such as "Open Street Maps are >> horrendously inaccurate". > > Hi Carlos, I understand your point of view as OSMAnd is maybe the > best you can get. I did not say that it is the best I can get. I do not know which is the best possible one, not a thing I care about. Possibly it depends on what exact information you need. For example, TomTom uses a combination of their own maps and other sources. There were news about they joining with open street maps, too. For example, there are government maps. One of them caters to measuring properties accurately. When you sell a property, the official script is compared to that map, and that map information supersedes the script. So it maps accurately properties within a meter. https://www1.sedecatastro.gob.es/cartografia/mapa.aspx And it is not the only map in existence. For example, here: <https://www.ign.es/web/cbg-area-cartografia> Some of them you have to pay for access. And the military also have or had their own maps. Around here, Open Street Maps are pretty good, and they are gratis. You can not say a blanket statement that they are horrendous. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl2a6u$1d5r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145718 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:32:02 +0100 : > Around here, Open Street Maps are pretty good, and they are gratis. You > can not say a blanket statement that they are horrendous. Keeping to the topic of free maps & apps (since I never pay for them)... You seem to know more than most people about maps, Carlos, and for that I respect your judgment. Rest assured, I know more than most people do also. Most people are shockingly ignorant on how bad the OSM map data is. I'm not. Where I live, in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California, I've thoroughly tested *every* free map application known to Android (and I've written tutorials on all of them - which we can dig up in the Usenet archives). Suffice to say that OSMAnd (all variants) is a *GREAT* product. And the concept of Open Street Maps is also a *GREAT* idea. Of all people, of course I love the *idea* of open street maps, Carlos. It's just that I've *tested* the accuracy of the Open Street Maps topological maps inside of OSMAnd~ versus the USGS maps in Avenza. There's no comparison. a. In my tests, the open street maps were horrendously inaccurate. b. The USGS maps were merely inaccurate. I'd love it not to be that way; but it is what it is (in my tests). We've discussed this on the sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup in gory detail, and the only people objecting are those who have no access to USGS maps. Which makes sense since the free OSM maps are the best free maps they have.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkmofl$2vjo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145675 |
badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:56:55 -0000 (UTC) : >> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the Internet. >> > > One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a > region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. > Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the > grid. Hi badgolferman, I can converse differently with you than with the Apple trolls, where I'd note that Google Maps is likely not considered to be part of the fabled Apple walled garden (which, itself, requires logging into Apple servers). I'm not even sure if I'd consider Apple Maps to be in the walled garden. Is it? Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple ID?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0ov25nkiwwkss002@reader443.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #145684 |
Andrew wrote: >badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:56:55 -0000 (UTC) : > >>>Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the >>>Internet. >>> >> >>One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of >>a region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular >>connection. Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a >>practice in being off the grid. > >Hi badgolferman, > >I can converse differently with you than with the Apple trolls, where >I'd note that Google Maps is likely not considered to be part of the >fabled Apple walled garden (which, itself, requires logging into >Apple servers). > >I'm not even sure if I'd consider Apple Maps to be in the walled >garden. > >Is it? > >Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple >ID? There seems to be an internet version available. However unlike Google Maps I don't see a way to include multiple stops. https://beta.maps.apple.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmsmb$3nkcv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145686 |
On 2024-12-27 10:01, badgolferman wrote: > Andrew wrote: > >> badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:56:55 -0000 (UTC) : >> >>>> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the >>>> Internet. >>>> >>> >>> One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of >>> a region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular >>> connection. Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a >>> practice in being off the grid. >> >> Hi badgolferman, >> >> I can converse differently with you than with the Apple trolls, where >> I'd note that Google Maps is likely not considered to be part of the >> fabled Apple walled garden (which, itself, requires logging into >> Apple servers). >> >> I'm not even sure if I'd consider Apple Maps to be in the walled >> garden. >> >> Is it? >> >> Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple >> ID? > > There seems to be an internet version available. However unlike Google > Maps I don't see a way to include multiple stops. > > https://beta.maps.apple.com/ > > And yet: 1. You can use Apple Maps on iOS without signing in, so I don't know why you'd use what is clearly a beta web version. 2. iOS Maps allows you to include multiple stops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkn7s6$2tld$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145686 |
badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 18:01:02 -0000 (UTC) : >>Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple >>ID? > > There seems to be an internet version available. However unlike Google > Maps I don't see a way to include multiple stops. > > https://beta.maps.apple.com/ Hi badgolferman, Thanks for responding normally, as we can converse like two humans should, interact instead of having to play those silly games the Apple trolls play. I keep around an iPad 10th generation WITHOUT an Apple ID just to test what works and what doesn't work with the mothership - so I will test this out. Note that Apple *required* the Internet just to "activate" that iPad, which the Apple trolls (like Alan Baker) claim they did WITHOUT the Internet (which no longer shocks me that they're that ignorant or that they lie). On that tenth-generation iPad which has no Apple ID assigned to it: 1. I opened Apple Maps (which was in the "Other" folder by default) 2. Apple Maps first asked "Get Notified when Friends Share their ETAs" (Yeah, right. I think I can "Dismiss" that one, huh?) 3. Then it popped up "Introducing Hikes and Custom Routes" (But there's no button to dismiss that one - just "Continue".) 4. Now I am in Apple Maps where it says "Location Service is Off". However, even without location services turned on Apple Maps can route: From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 To: 100 Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Apple piously warned me "Getting There Safely, Be safe and pay attention to your surroundings, Always observe posted signs and local laws", which, um, I'm sitting in my office chair, so thank you Apple for worrying about me. Below that is "Add Stop" with a big fat blue plus sign "(+)". So I add this stop: 100 Main St, Comfort, TX 78013 It seems to have worked for me. But maybe I'm using a newer version of Apple Maps than you're using (I'm on iOS 18.0 and it says 18.2 is ready). If this were Android, I know how to get the version of any app (using Muntashirakon) but I don't know how to get the version of this Maps app. On iOS, how do we get the version of the Apple Maps app anyway?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkna2h$1f28c$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #145701 |
Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: > badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 18:01:02 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple >>> ID? >> >> There seems to be an internet version available. However unlike Google >> Maps I don't see a way to include multiple stops. >> >> https://beta.maps.apple.com/ > > Hi badgolferman, > > Thanks for responding normally, as we can converse like two humans should, > interact instead of having to play those silly games the Apple trolls play. > > I keep around an iPad 10th generation WITHOUT an Apple ID just to test what > works and what doesn't work with the mothership - so I will test this out. > > Note that Apple *required* the Internet just to "activate" that iPad, which > the Apple trolls (like Alan Baker) claim they did WITHOUT the Internet > (which no longer shocks me that they're that ignorant or that they lie). > > On that tenth-generation iPad which has no Apple ID assigned to it: > 1. I opened Apple Maps (which was in the "Other" folder by default) > 2. Apple Maps first asked "Get Notified when Friends Share their ETAs" > (Yeah, right. I think I can "Dismiss" that one, huh?) > 3. Then it popped up "Introducing Hikes and Custom Routes" > (But there's no button to dismiss that one - just "Continue".) > 4. Now I am in Apple Maps where it says "Location Service is Off". > > However, even without location services turned on Apple Maps can route: > From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 > To: 100 Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76102 > > Apple piously warned me "Getting There Safely, Be safe and pay attention to > your surroundings, Always observe posted signs and local laws", which, um, > I'm sitting in my office chair, so thank you Apple for worrying about me. > > Below that is "Add Stop" with a big fat blue plus sign "(+)". > So I add this stop: 100 Main St, Comfort, TX 78013 > > It seems to have worked for me. But maybe I'm using a newer version of > Apple Maps than you're using (I'm on iOS 18.0 and it says 18.2 is ready). > > If this were Android, I know how to get the version of any app (using > Muntashirakon) but I don't know how to get the version of this Maps app. > > On iOS, how do we get the version of the Apple Maps app anyway? > The link I provided was to the beta desktop version. You had asked if it works on other platforms. I used Windows 10 and Google Chrome for that one. I didn’t see a way to add stops on that version, but maybe I missed it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 14:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vknahm$3rtoq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145704 |
On 2024-12-27 14:34, badgolferman wrote: > Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote: >> badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 18:01:02 -0000 (UTC) : >> >>>> Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple >>>> ID? >>> >>> There seems to be an internet version available. However unlike Google >>> Maps I don't see a way to include multiple stops. >>> >>> https://beta.maps.apple.com/ >> >> Hi badgolferman, >> >> Thanks for responding normally, as we can converse like two humans should, >> interact instead of having to play those silly games the Apple trolls play. >> >> I keep around an iPad 10th generation WITHOUT an Apple ID just to test what >> works and what doesn't work with the mothership - so I will test this out. >> >> Note that Apple *required* the Internet just to "activate" that iPad, which >> the Apple trolls (like Alan Baker) claim they did WITHOUT the Internet >> (which no longer shocks me that they're that ignorant or that they lie). >> >> On that tenth-generation iPad which has no Apple ID assigned to it: >> 1. I opened Apple Maps (which was in the "Other" folder by default) >> 2. Apple Maps first asked "Get Notified when Friends Share their ETAs" >> (Yeah, right. I think I can "Dismiss" that one, huh?) >> 3. Then it popped up "Introducing Hikes and Custom Routes" >> (But there's no button to dismiss that one - just "Continue".) >> 4. Now I am in Apple Maps where it says "Location Service is Off". >> >> However, even without location services turned on Apple Maps can route: >> From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 >> To: 100 Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76102 >> >> Apple piously warned me "Getting There Safely, Be safe and pay attention to >> your surroundings, Always observe posted signs and local laws", which, um, >> I'm sitting in my office chair, so thank you Apple for worrying about me. >> >> Below that is "Add Stop" with a big fat blue plus sign "(+)". >> So I add this stop: 100 Main St, Comfort, TX 78013 >> >> It seems to have worked for me. But maybe I'm using a newer version of >> Apple Maps than you're using (I'm on iOS 18.0 and it says 18.2 is ready). >> >> If this were Android, I know how to get the version of any app (using >> Muntashirakon) but I don't know how to get the version of this Maps app. >> >> On iOS, how do we get the version of the Apple Maps app anyway? >> > > The link I provided was to the beta desktop version. You had asked if it > works on other platforms. I used Windows 10 and Google Chrome for that one. > I didn’t see a way to add stops on that version, but maybe I missed it. > You think that Arlen/Andrew actually read what you wrote! How cute!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andys@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-28 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vknkoc$18ok$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #145704 |
badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:34:57 -0000 (UTC) : >> If this were Android, I know how to get the version of any app (using >> Muntashirakon) but I don't know how to get the version of this Maps app. >> >> On iOS, how do we get the version of the Apple Maps app anyway? >> > > The link I provided was to the beta desktop version. You had asked if it > works on other platforms. I used Windows 10 and Google Chrome for that one. > I didn�t see a way to add stops on that version, but maybe I missed it. Well, I went to that link on my default Windows web browser and clicked on "Directions" and then I entered the two locations to get directions for: <https://beta.maps.apple.com/> From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 To: 100 Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Then I hit "Now" and then "Apply" and it failed to do anything. So it's a Beta for sure. https://beta.maps.apple.com/?saddr=100+Main+St%2C+100+Main+St+Redwood+City%2C+CA+94063+United+States&dirflg=d Changing the browser to SRWare Iron, it failed differently, saying: Maps Your current browser isn't supported. https://beta.maps.apple.com/unsupported https://support.apple.com/en-us/120585 (See supported browsers.) Apparently Apple coders are sophomoric (fancy that) and don't know how to code anything (which, of course, I'm not surprised at since Apple sucks at writing code that works on anything not on the Apple platform itself). I don't have Chrome on any platform but I tried it with Firefox. <https://beta.maps.apple.com/> From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 To: 100 Main St, Fort Worth, TX 76102 When I hit "Now" and then "Apply", it failed to work even on Firefox. It takes only so much to get sick of Apple's sophomoric coding (their apps always seem to have been written by high school kids) so I gave up. Not only does it likely not add stops, it doesn't even work without them. -- Almost every time I touch Apple software, it proves to be utter garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 17:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vknl2r$3urm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145709 |
On 2024-12-27 17:37, Andrew wrote: > badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:34:57 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> If this were Android, I know how to get the version of any app (using >>> Muntashirakon) but I don't know how to get the version of this Maps app. >>> >>> On iOS, how do we get the version of the Apple Maps app anyway? >>> >> >> The link I provided was to the beta desktop version. You had asked if it >> works on other platforms. I used Windows 10 and Google Chrome for that >> one. >> I didn�t see a way to add stops on that version, but maybe I missed it. > > Well, I went to that link on my default Windows web browser and clicked on > "Directions" and then I entered the two locations to get directions for: > <https://beta.maps.apple.com/> > From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 To: 100 Main St, Fort > Worth, TX 76102 > > Then I hit "Now" and then "Apply" and it failed to do anything. > So it's a Beta for sure. > https://beta.maps.apple.com/? > saddr=100+Main+St%2C+100+Main+St+Redwood+City%2C+CA+94063+United+States&dirflg=d You mean you deliberately used it incorrectly to get the result you wanted. <https://beta.maps.apple.com/?daddr=32.756818%2C+-97.3330267&saddr=100+Main+St%2C+100+Main+St+Redwood+City%2C+CA+94063+United+States&dirflg=d> > > Changing the browser to SRWare Iron, it failed differently, saying: > Maps Your current browser isn't supported. > https://beta.maps.apple.com/unsupported > https://support.apple.com/en-us/120585 > (See supported browsers.) > > Apparently Apple coders are sophomoric (fancy that) and don't know how to > code anything (which, of course, I'm not surprised at since Apple sucks at > writing code that works on anything not on the Apple platform itself). > > I don't have Chrome on any platform but I tried it with Firefox. > <https://beta.maps.apple.com/> > From: 100 Main Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 To: 100 Main St, Fort > Worth, TX 76102 > When I hit "Now" and then "Apply", it failed to work even on Firefox. > > It takes only so much to get sick of Apple's sophomoric coding (their apps > always seem to have been written by high school kids) so I gave up. > > Not only does it likely not add stops, it doesn't even work without them. <https://beta.maps.apple.com/?daddr=32.756818%2C+-97.3330267&saddr=100+Main+St%2C+100+Main+St+Redwood+City%2C+CA+94063+United+States&dirflg=d>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkmscm$3nkcv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145684 |
On 2024-12-27 09:34, Andrew wrote: > badgolferman wrote on Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:56:55 -0000 (UTC) : > >>> Nothing that people love in the walled garden works without the >>> Internet. >>> >> >> One thing I like about Google Maps is that you can download maps of a >> region you plan to visit and use the app without any cellular connection. >> Going to the ski resorts in West Virginia is a practice in being off the >> grid. > > Hi badgolferman, > > I can converse differently with you than with the Apple trolls, where I'd > note that Google Maps is likely not considered to be part of the fabled > Apple walled garden (which, itself, requires logging into Apple servers). > > I'm not even sure if I'd consider Apple Maps to be in the walled garden. > > Is it? > > Can other people on other platforms use Apple maps WITHOUT an Apple ID? I thought you said you had iOS devices, Arlen. Why don't you just try it and report?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-27 11:38 -0800 |
| Subject | For the record and just the facts, an iPad without an AppleID (was Re: RCS is not more private and secure than texting according to the FBI |
| Message-ID | <vkmvmu$3pha0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145516 |
On 2024-12-21 13:04, Andrew wrote: > Arno Welzel wrote on Sat, 21 Dec 2024 17:05:12 +0100 : > >>> How can you send and receive group facetime messages to and from other >>> Apple users without logging into Apple's messaging servers on the >>> Internet? >> >> Is "send and receive group facetime messages" neccessary to do phone >> calls, taking pictures or listening to music stored on the device? > > Arno, > > Please tell all of us how you can do *anything* on the iOS device *without* > logging into the Internet to *create* an Apple account on Apple's servers. Here are the FACTS. I just took my iPad (after making sure it was backed up of course) and erased it. Then I set it up from scratch. I was asked if I wanted to use my AppleID, or create a new one... ...or continue without one. I chose the latter. The setup process completed and I have a perfectly functional iPad without any AppleID. Calendar Photos Camera Contacts Clock Maps Home Notes Reminders Stocks News Books Podcasts Photo Booth Voice Memos These all work without an AppleID. So what doesn't work with logging into an Apple Account (new name of an "AppleID")? FaceTime iTunes Store App Store Find iPhone Find Friends TV So there you go. Yes: you'd need to sign into an Apple Account to download additional apps, but you don't need to STAY signed in to use those apps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vk4l5f$3kdf5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #145418 |
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:15:53 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote >> Given the US is only about half Android and yet the world is overwhelmingly >> Android, we all need to keep in mind Apple's vaunted "walled garden" >> doesn't work unless you have constant 24/7/365 Internet access which most >> of the world may not necessarily have. > > For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to the > internet or not. How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ns3h3lxm06.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #145422 |
On 2024-12-20 21:47, Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 11:15:53 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote >>> Given the US is only about half Android and yet the world is >>> overwhelmingly >>> Android, we all need to keep in mind Apple's vaunted "walled garden" >>> doesn't work unless you have constant 24/7/365 Internet access which >>> most >>> of the world may not necessarily have. >> >> For the record, my iPhone continues to work whether I'm connected to >> the internet or not. > > How do you install apps without logging into Apple's app store on the net? Arlen, please... using multiple IDs in the same discussion is not polite. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web