Would you file an FTC or FCC complaint for Android T-Mobile

[josephkk]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:04:46 +0100, "Stanley Daniel de Liver"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:05:05 +0100, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, The Real Bev wrote:

On 04/05/2014 04:46 AM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 02:58:57 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

The solution, of course, is to 'root' the phone.
Then you can do what you like with the storage ...
I've never rooted a phone, but, I may be forced to do so,
just to make the phone usable.
I do agree with you that *all* the preloaded apps won't allow
you to move them.
I guess if you could move them, you could delete them.
Mewonders if Google makes certain apps non-removable (e.g., Chrome)
because it's in there best interest. Yet, mewonders why
T-Mobile makes certain apps (e.g., T-Mobile TV) non-removable,
since there are plenty of their apps I'd never ever use but
I can't get rid of.

Chrome (the Android 'Browser') is much faster than firefox, but does
NOT allow adblock plus -- which I consider essential for any browsing I
do, especially with severely limited screen size.

There are always tradeoffs :-(

It makes sense. Chrome is an extension of google, and google relies on
ads to make money. Google wants to be the place where people "log in"
and then roam around the internet, making it easier for them to track
you, and then display appropriate ads all over the place.

I'm not saying it's good, just "makes sense" from google's viewpoint.

Michael

If you're savvy (and you probably are if you've rooted your device), then
a hosts file can kill 99% of known adverts.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

That is just one of hundreds of reliable sites with useful hosts tables.

?-)

 

[Leif Neland]

nobody@nada.com kom med fřlgende:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

Then blame the EPA who decided how to measure it.

This number shouldn't be called mpg or km/l, it should be called Fuel
Consumption Index, because it is not the real life consumption; it is
measured in a reproducible and comparable way to allow for the
comparing (sp?) of different cars.

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

 

[josephkk]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ

Real bad leadfoot eh?

?-)

 

[dave]

On 04/10/2014 12:42 AM, josephkk wrote:

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

Have there been any scientific tests on the effects of listening
fatigue, over hours, from listening to PAC and SBR compressed files? It
is a real consideration as any broadcast engineer worth his Rohde and
Schwarz can tell you. I can listen to 128k MP3 all day long in the car
but once I get in a quiet place the same files sound like wire recordings.

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

It is acknowledged that some of us hear better. I have not read a
magazine in years.

 

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:03:07 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev
bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

A knowledgeable person might have defined 'usable' as 'usable for
downloading and running additional applications'; the problem is that
NOBODY is knowledgeable the first time they buy a smartphone...or
computer...or anything else that's fairly complex; there's always SOME
nasty surprise no matter how much research you do

NObody is "knowledgable" the first time they buy a car either. Do they
just pick one out to buy without doing any research?

I know someone who freely admits to buying a car because "it was white, had
two doors, and a spoiler".

Your point is still valid, of course.

--
Paul Miner

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:37:20 -0500, Paul Miner
<pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:03:07 -0700, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev
bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

A knowledgeable person might have defined 'usable' as 'usable for
downloading and running additional applications'; the problem is that
NOBODY is knowledgeable the first time they buy a smartphone...or
computer...or anything else that's fairly complex; there's always SOME
nasty surprise no matter how much research you do

NObody is "knowledgable" the first time they buy a car either. Do they
just pick one out to buy without doing any research?

I know someone who freely admits to buying a car because "it was white, had
two doors, and a spoiler".

Your point is still valid, of course.

I didn't mean people don't do that, just that doing it is stupid.

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
<joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave <ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:


this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

 

[dave]

On 04/11/2014 01:16 AM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)


And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not. And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

 

[nospam]

In article <Ga-dnfT5YsgcB9vOnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
<ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

Try listening to a viola bow on a moderate bitrate aac+ file, or the
breathy sounds of an isolated female vocal. On some material all the
shortcomings and mathematical anomalies manifest at once. Certain pure
tones can turn fool the decoder to produce "aliasing" artifacts for no
reason.

aliasing is due to undersampling, not a codec, and the sampling rate is
high enough to reproduce all audible frequencies (and then some),
especially for anyone past about 20-30 years old.

i guarantee that in a double-blind test you won't be able to tell the
difference between an original aiff and an aac. countless such tests
have shown this to be true for others.

 

[nospam]

In article <0q8fk9ll8rqh34pgsg0csoe75bgdcj86qk@4ax.com>,
<nobody@nada.com> wrote:

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds
already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would
sound the same as the sacd.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

that's a very simplistic view.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3
versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the
differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads.
dogs might enjoy the difference though.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

 

[nospam]

In article <VqidnaTe3OsyYNrOnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@earthlink.com>, dave
<ricketzz@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

whether something is open source or not has nothing whatsoever to do
with how it sounds.

in a double-blind test, you won't be able to tell which is which.

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:53:17 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <0q8fk9ll8rqh34pgsg0csoe75bgdcj86qk@4ax.com>,
nobody@nada.com> wrote:

And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master.

that's because they *are* indistinguishable.

the differences are well beyond the capabilities of human hearing. cds
already reproduce *more* than what humans can hear.

Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

that's possible, but it's not a function of the format.

if the same remastering was also done for a cd version, then it would
sound the same as the sacd.

That was my point.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.

that's a very simplistic view.

You have a better way to describe it in a single post? I didn't mean
that the middle is empty.

there can be a difference with crap and non-crap (i.e., 64kbps mp3
versus aiff or $2 headphones versus $200 headphones), but when the
differences are beyond what humans can hear, it's all in their heads.
dogs might enjoy the difference though.

Yes, when they are beyond what humans can hear they can't be heard.
Your point? What they can hear depends on the source material, the
reporuction system, and the person.

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

 

[nospam]

In article <saggk99b839eddmpqsl0cl96kk3mains1r@4ax.com>,
<nobody@nada.com> wrote:

in double-blind tests, people consistently do no better than chance in.
they are *guessing*.

In guessing what?

they're guessing which is which, which means there's no difference.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 06:05 AM, dave wrote:

On 04/07/2014 03:05 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/06/2014 08:43 AM, Danny D. wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:19:11 -0400, TJ wrote:

Strong suggestion: Learn from your experience.

The bad news is that nobody would buy this LG Optimus L9
if they truthfully advertised it's a 600MB phone for apps.

The result of that bad news is that I can't use the phone
as it is (i.e., out of the box), since it is a 600MB phone
for apps (even with the 32 GB SDcard).

So, the good news implication is that, even if I brick it,
I haven't lost anything, since the phone is worthless from
the get go.

All I can do is make a worthless phone less worthless or
more worthless, depending on the outcome of my cyanogenmod
efforts ...

I'm trying to line up my ducks with this tutorial:

http://www.androidrooting.com/how-to-root-lg-optimus-l9-p769-very-easily/

BUT FIRST find out how to restore its virginity in the event of failure!

Use Youtube video tutorials.

Sorry, unless for something truly simple I regard youtube instructional
videos as barely more reliable than advertisements or reviews. I looked
at several claiming to show how to bend some parts of my Canon A720is
camera so it would not constantly be signaling 'low battery'. Theirs
didn't even look like mine.

--
Cheers, Bev
********************************************************************
Organized people will never know the sheer joyous ecstasy of finding
something that was believed to have been irretrievably lost.
-- D. Stern

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 07:58 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 05:52 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

I should have read this newsgroup before buying the phone. I've found
that people who review products in various "forums" and
sales/manufacturers' websites generally don't have a clue.

Straying a bit off-topic, but the same thing can be said for most user
reviews. Some are done by shills paid by competitors to pan the item.
Some are done by people who have purchased it but haven't even opened
the "box" yet. And some are done by kids, who by definition think they
know everything. Maybe 10% are honest reviews. Trouble is, it can be
hard to find which 10% that is.

I automatically disbelieve any with piss-poor grammar, spelling,
punctuation, etc., as well as those who just sound stupid. I'd guess
less than 10%, but I'm a hopeful pessimist at heart :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
********************************************************************
Organized people will never know the sheer joyous ecstasy of finding
something that was believed to have been irretrievably lost.
-- D. Stern

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 08:16 AM, TJ wrote:

On 04/07/2014 06:14 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

When we buy an automobile, we have certain unstated expectations --
motor, wheels, steering wheel etc. We don't need to ask for these
specifically because everybody knows that they're part of the car. When
was the last time you bought a car and the salesman asked "And will you
be wanting headlights with that, sir?"

Maybe that was how it worked 100 years ago, but not for a long time now.

Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

That number is actually dependent on the kind of driving you do -- the
only value the mpg rating has is as a comparison tool with other
vehicles rated by the same entity. That's very different.

Never having bought a new car, I'll take your word for the miles/tank
thing. All things considered, I've been satisfied with the cheap used
cars I've purchased. You can test drive them, sniff, listen, look at
the oil and transmission fluid, bounce them, push buttons, etc. I would
never buy a car -- even a new one -- just by reading the spec sheet or
instruction manual.

OTOH, I don't have much confidence in my ability to choose or fix a car
with electrical/computer-driven works. In this case I have to trust the
manufacturer based on previous experience. This means I buy only
Toyota, or maybe Mazda. GM and Nissan cars have been disappointing, and
a friend says he would never own a BMW if his son wasn't a BMW mechanic
and could get him free repair and discounts on purchases. Toyotas,
however, have been bulletproof no matter how badly they were abused.

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 10:50 AM, Howard Schornstein wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:19:55 -0700, The Real Bev scrit:

Sort of like WW2 'dazzle' paint on ships

I'm afraid to ask.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzle_camouflage

There's also the element of unexpectedness. We have all gone into a
room looking for something and not finding it, gon somewhere else,
returned to the original room and found the item in plain sight. It has
to do with your mind constructing reality out of what the eye shows it.
If it doesn't know what something is, it makes something up out of
what it's experienced previously.

The article talks about the difficulty in judging the range to a dazzled
ship, but other articles have referred to the mnd of the enemy refusing
to see something so different from what a ship was supposed to look like.

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 05:33 PM, Paul Miner wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D." <dannyd@is.invalid
wrote:

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Until they get slapped in the face with the Trout of Truth

--
Cheers, Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani

 

[The Real Bev]

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, nobody@nada.com wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My life outside of USENET is so full of love and kindness that I have
to come here to find the venom and bile that I crave." --R. Damiani