| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 02 07:37PM Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well setup Android phone? What can Google possibly latch onto to spy on our Android actions? Specific things only. Not Marketing crap please. The iOS guys are constantly saying that just using Android alone is allowing Google to spy on us, which, they say, Apple doesn't do. They say they're much safer from spying on iOS than we are on Android. Ok. Where's the beef? (The iOS guys are like your basic used-car salespeople - they almost never tell the truth and they can only spout what the Marketing guys tell them to say - so we're not going to get any provable level of detail from them). Even though we won't likely get anything from iOS guys that they didn't read off of a glossy marketing brochure, I'll cc them, just in case they do know something of what they constantly talk about. Other than Google Mail and Google Maps and Google browsers (and other apps common to both platforms), what exactly are they talking about when they constantly imply they're safer from spying on iOS than on Android? Specifically, what does Google latch on to in order to "spy" on our Android activities that Apple doesn't likewise do? The Apple guys get all their ideas from the admittedly clever Marketing machine (which knows how to play to their intense fear) so I doubt they'll be providing any real details to their accusations - yet they still constantly accuse the Android users of being spied upon by Google simply for using Android. I just want to find out the correct answer to the question. Therefore, I'm just asking *how* Google can spy on us when we are using Android (that can't be likewise done when were using iOS)? I maintain a pretty clean single-desktop-pane privacy settings ship, where I keep a copy of all known Google-specific apps, to ensure I'm not logged into any one of them: http://i.cubeupload.com/oexktG.gif And, as you know, I've recently deleted my Google Play ID, where the Android phone works just fine without a Google ID - so Google can't latch onto my Google Play ID (which no longer even exists) to "spy" on my Android activities. Likewise, I've always had "Location services" set to the recommended privacy settings, so, apps aren't allowed to use my location: http://i.cubeupload.com/ugZ1fc.gif In addition, using App Ops Starter, I've turned off location access to all Android apps that I don't think need this information, for example: - Android Settings: http://i.cubeupload.com/mYSCjc.gif - Network Location: http://i.cubeupload.com/rfmqc7.gif - Android IP Service: http://i.cubeupload.com/ZCV3yC.gif etc. Furthermore, I have location turned off for non-Android apps also, for example: - Google Play Services: http://i.cubeupload.com/KbMWVM.gif - Google Search: http://i.cubeupload.com/ZUiP01.gif - ES File Explorer: http://i.cubeupload.com/mX8GaS.gif etc. Even though the "Advertising ID" menu (and a bunch of other things) are now no longer in the Android settings menus, I still can bring up "Google Settings" separately: http://i.cubeupload.com/N97c9S.gif And, in those "Google Settings", I can easily reset the "Advertising ID": http://i.cubeupload.com/SVpOs2.gif So, without a static "Advertising ID" (and ignoring Google Maps and Google Mail, which are special cross-platform apps that exist on iOS also), what Android-specific things can Google possibly latch off of to spy on us while we're using our Android devices that Apple doesn't also do on iOS? |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Aug 02 03:43PM -0400 In article <nnqspi$1cqq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks > I just want to find out the correct answer to the question. no you don't. you've been told the answer numerous times and you just don't listen. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 02 07:54PM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:43:34 -0400, nospam wrote: > you've been told the answer numerous times and you just don't listen. I'm tired of your senseless riddles & rumor mongering UFO fears. You don't know the answer; you only know Apple marketing glossy literature. Facts are all that we ask for here. Not your senseless self-serving fear-mongering idiotic riddles. I provided facts in the OP. Now it's time to find out the answer from someone who knows how Android works (which isn't me - and it certainly isn't you). TO ANDROID USERS: Do you know *how* Google can "spy" on us, like the iOS users allude to? TO IOS USERS: You're welcome to add value - but please don't give us only glossy marketing FUD sans a single verifiable detail. |
| tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>: Aug 02 10:28PM -0400 On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:37:23 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote: > Ok. Where's the beef? You tell me. You seem to be the one that's beefing :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 03:18AM On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:28:23 -0400, tlvp wrote: > You tell me. You seem to be the one that's beefing I did provide all the facts I knew. You provided absolutely nothing of any value (so why do you bother?). 1. I don't log into Google apps: http://i.cubeupload.com/oexktG.gif 2. I turn off location services: http://i.cubeupload.com/ugZ1fc.gif 3. I turn off all Android location access: - Android Settings: http://i.cubeupload.com/mYSCjc.gif - Network Location: http://i.cubeupload.com/rfmqc7.gif - Android IP Service: http://i.cubeupload.com/ZCV3yC.gif - Google Play Services: http://i.cubeupload.com/KbMWVM.gif - Google Search: http://i.cubeupload.com/ZUiP01.gif - ES File Explorer: http://i.cubeupload.com/mX8GaS.gif etc. 4. Without a Google Account, it may very well be that the Advertising ID no longer exists; but, just in case, I tap on Google Settings to change it. http://i.cubeupload.com/SVpOs2.gif You clearly know even less than I do. So you'll *never* be able to answer the simple question. You live off of fear inculcated in you by Apple Marketing. Me? I just want the facts. So I ask the factual question, which, can be summarized as: a. Does not having a Google Play account eliminate the Advertising ID? (Deleting the Google Play account "appears" to remove all vestiges of the Advertising ID from the Android settings - so that "might" be the case that there is no longer an Advertising ID - but that remains to be proven.) b. Ignoring cross-platform apps such as Google Maps and Google Mail (which exist on iOS also), what Android-specific privacy things can Google possibly latch off of to spy on us while we're using our Android devices that Apple doesn't also do on iOS? So far, nobody knows of anything. The Apple Apologists (predictably) bring up nothing whatsoever of factual value (as if they all work for Apple Marketing because they live and breathe fear in everything they do). Facts don't scare me like they scare them. I'm hoping the Android aficionados will know the facts. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 03:43AM On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 03:18:12 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote: > a. Does not having a Google Play account eliminate the Advertising ID? Facts only. It seems Apple iOS devices have a resettable Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), which can be rest on iOS devices using: Settings->Privacy->Advertising->Reset Advertising Identifier. So, in that sense, iOS and Google seems to be similar; although it appears that the Google Advertising ID "may" be easily removable on non-rooted devices simply by deleting your Google Play account (still working on that premise). Apple iOS devices also have a Unique Device Identifier (UDID). |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Aug 02 11:51PM -0400 In article <nnrp8s$d84$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Aardvarks > Apple iOS devices also have a Unique Device Identifier (UDID). which apps cannot access and use to identify users. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 04:21AM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 23:51:07 -0400, nospam wrote: >> Apple iOS devices also have a Unique Device Identifier (UDID). > which apps cannot access and use to identify users. It seems that Google may have copied Apple in creating the Advertising ID in the first place, as stated in this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-new-advertising-id-is-now-live-and-tracking-new-android-phonesthis-is-what-it-looks-like-2014-1 However, apparently very much unlike the Apple Advertising ID (IDFA), it is well known that Android users have long had the opportunity to opt out of Advertising ID (AdID) based tracking. Even more unlike the Apple Advertising ID (IDFA), so far, it seems that deleting the Android Google Play account may have also deleted the entire existence of the Advertising ID (AdID). The first clue is that the entire concept of the Advertising ID instantly disappeared from the Android settings menu when the Google Play account was removed. Another clue is this developer web page which states that the advertising ID works only when Google Play Services is available: https://developers.google.com/android/reference/com/google/android/gms/ads/identifier/AdvertisingIdClient This article says the Advertising ID came from Google Play Services 4.0, which no longer exists on my phone, which implies no Advertising ID: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/01/google-play-services-4-0-requires-developers-to-use-the-new-advertising-id-to-identify-your-device-enforcement-starts-aug-2014/ This article confirms that the AdID is composed from the Google Play account, which doesn't even exist, so it's probably not possible to generate a valid AdID: http://ccm.net/faq/34759-android-prevent-apps-from-using-your-advertising-id Probably the strongest evidence is in this article, which pretty much says that without Google Play Services (GPS), the advertising ID (AdID) can't be used by applications: https://dev.twitter.com/mopub/android/google-advertising-id-faq But, Google Play account and Google Play Services aren't the same thing. Does anyone on the Android side actually know, for sure, that deleting the Google Play account and/or turning off Google Play services disables the generation or use of the Advertising ID? |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 06:34AM On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 04:21:07 -0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote: > Does anyone on the Android side actually know, for sure, that deleting the > Google Play account and/or turning off Google Play services disables the > generation or use of the Advertising ID? Facts only. While I had already limited Google Play Services using App Ops Starter: http://i.cubeupload.com/AAUQuo.gif To test how the non-rooted Android device handles the lack of both a Google Play account and Google Play Services, I removed or disabled these "apps" from my Android phone using the Android Application Manager: http://i.cubeupload.com/PV4AHO.gif 1. Removing the Google Play Store app: http://i.cubeupload.com/aWDZ9H.gif 2. Disabling the Google Play Services app: http://i.cubeupload.com/Y6XcAh.gif 3. Disabling the Google Services Framework app: http://i.cubeupload.com/6h3Whb.gif The result was that my admittedly cleanly organized desktop: http://i.cubeupload.com/Uld6T3.gif Just got cleaner, in that the Google Play app disappeared: http://i.cubeupload.com/pkGmQ3.gif And, even the "Google Settings" app disappeared! http://i.cubeupload.com/DoKW6g.gif Two facts: a. Deleting the Google Play account removed all mention of the Advertising ID (AdID) from the Android settings, but the "Google Settings" app icon remained, which had a menu for the Advertising ID. b. In addition, deleting and disabling the apps above, wiped out the "Google Settings" app, so now there is zero mention of any ApID anywhere in the Android device (that I can find). One hypothesis for the Android aficionados: - Have I entirely wiped out the AdID from my non-rooted device? If not - where is it? |
| Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>: Aug 02 11:43PM -0700 >> Google Play account and/or turning off Google Play services disables the >> generation or use of the Advertising ID? > Facts only. The only fact here is, you are talking to yourself. ...and you are answering. There is something disturbing in that. -- Regards, Savageduck |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 06:47AM On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 06:34:07 +0000 (UTC), Aardvarks wrote: > One hypothesis for the Android aficionados: > - Have I entirely wiped out the AdID from my non-rooted device? > If not - where is it? Facts only - not fear mongering. I rebooted the phone to see if the removal and disabling of the Google Play Store app and Google Play Services and Google Services Framework would come back, but they seem to have stayed off upon inspection after reboot. The great news is that I can't find the Advertising ID anywhere on the Android system (this is an unrooted phone - so - to my knowledge - I'm the first one to document this - although I can't be the only one to have thought of something this simple). While it seems the Advertising ID is now entirely gone from my Android phone, one minor gotcha was that *some* of the Google apps fail to work with the three changes below: 1. Removing the Google Play Store app: http://i.cubeupload.com/aWDZ9H.gif 2. Disabling the Google Play Services app: http://i.cubeupload.com/Y6XcAh.gif 3. Disabling the Google Services Framework app: http://i.cubeupload.com/6h3Whb.gif Surprisingly, Google Maps still works but the Google Youtube App fails, by giving the clear message that Google Play needs to be "updated". Luckily, saving a youtube link from Firefox to the deskop completely replaces that pushbutton youtube app, so there's no loss in functionality. More surprisingly, the *default* SMS app that came with the Samsung Galaxy S3 (yellow and white envelope icon), failed to send messages. This was also easily worked around simply by installing a different SMS app from F-Droid, named QSSMS, which worked fine in back-and-forth test messages to the iOS user who switched from Android Nexus 5 to iPhone 6 a few weeks ago. I will test this further, but, it seems that everything else is working, but that there is no Advertising ID nor Google Play account nor even Google Play Services running on this unrooted Android phone. Given that fact, what could Google possibly latch on to in order to invade privacy? Can the iOS users likewise wipe out the Apple advertising ID altogether? |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 07:06AM On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:43:09 -0700, Savageduck wrote: > The only fact here is, you are talking to yourself. > ...and you are answering. There is something disturbing in that. What's interesting is that you know *absolutely nothing* about this topic, yet, you still post your usual Apple-Marketing-induced fear-driven drivel. I am adding value to the overall knowledge level. If I'm the only one in this ng capable of adding value - so be it. For example, it seems that the primitive iOS operating system is far less private than the more advanced Android operating system at this point simply because I've shown it's easy to completely eliminate the advertising id on Android. Once I confirm that's the case, I'll see if it's possible to completely eliminate the similar iOS Advertising ID; but knowing how limiting iOS is, I suspect I'll have to "just give up" like you guys do all the time on iOS. Meanwhile, if I happen to know more than the rest of you about how to easily make Android private, then so be it. It's sad, because I know next to nothing about either iOS or Android - but if I happen to know more than anyone here does - that's just a fact. The great news is that it was trivial to remove the Google Play account, which, I think, in and of itself, is all that's needed. It was also trivial to removed and/or disable the Google Services applications and Google Framework applications - where the repercussions were extremely minimal - so that's also good news. 1. Some Google apps stopped working (e.g., Youtube). 2. They were easily replaced. 3. One Android system app stopped working (i.e., Messages). 4. Likewise, that was easily replaced. I'll keep testing and reporting back the results. I doubt the backward Apple-Marketing-driven iOS users can ever add the slightest bit of value to a technical thread such as this, so, I mostly ask the far more sophisticated Android aficionados if they have similar experiences where all vestiges of the Google phoning home have been so easily eliminated. |
| Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>: Aug 03 10:57AM +0200 Am 03.08.2016 um 08:34 schrieb Aardvarks: > One hypothesis for the Android aficionados: > - Have I entirely wiped out the AdID from my non-rooted device? > If not - where is it? You seem to be unaware of the difference between data shown on a screen and data stored internally in a computer system. The only thing you've proven above is that you don't see this ID anymore in any (user accessible) screen. But you can't possibly know (at this time, after performing the steps you outlined) whether it's still stored somewhere in the system, nor whether it's still accessible by apps (or Android itself) whenever they choose to do so. Michael |
| Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>: Aug 03 11:07AM +0200 Am 02.08.2016 um 21:37 schrieb Aardvarks: > Even though we won't likely get anything from iOS guys that they didn't > read off of a glossy marketing brochure, I'll cc them, just in case they do > know something of what they constantly talk about. <...> > be providing any real details to their accusations - yet they still > constantly accuse the Android users of being spied upon by Google simply > for using Android. Do you really think it to be a good start of a discussion insulting one of the groups you hope to be participating? Me not... > I just want to find out the correct answer to the question. No you don't, you want your view of the world confirmed. Otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to insult the group that is most likely to be of a different opinion. Michael |
| Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>: Aug 03 11:04AM +0200 Am 03.08.2016 um 08:47 schrieb Aardvarks: > I will test this further, but, it seems that everything else is working, > but that there is no Advertising ID How do you know that? Not having it displayed on any screen is by no means the same as it not being there at all. > Given that fact, what could Google possibly latch on to in order to invade > privacy? There are other ways to identify a device, and we told you some weeks ago in another thread. IIRC you never came back on my statements, therefore I won't bring them up again. > Can the iOS users likewise wipe out the Apple advertising ID altogether? 'Likewise'? You didn't prove that the ID is actually wiped out. And as for iOS: I have an easily reachable menu in the Settings app, where I can (and have ;-) ) denied Ad-tracking, and where I can even reset the ADID (by generating a new one). In which way is that less secure than your way, which definitively is too complex for almost all users? Michael |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 02 06:19PM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:05:44 -0400, nospam wrote: >> Without a google play account, there's nothing for Google to latch on to. > wrong So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID, what are you saying Google latches on to then? |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Aug 02 03:25PM -0400 In article <nnqo7t$5h7$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks > > wrong > So, without a google play account, and without a static advertising ID, > what are you saying Google latches on to then? you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people around, hasn't thought of that scenario? |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 02 07:49PM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:25:10 -0400, nospam wrote: > you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time > make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm tired of your senseless riddles. You only know Apple marketing glossy literature. I'll ask the group that actually knows Android, to find the answer to the question: http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android > do you really think that google, whose revenue is almost entirely from > data-mining what people do and employs some of the smartest people > around, hasn't thought of that scenario? I only care about facts. You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. Apple marketing plays your fears like a fiddle. I'm just looking for real facts. We're quite different that way. - You live by fear. - I live by facts. But, if there is the tiniest shred of truth, hidden deeply in your self-serving nebulous riddles, I'll ask the group that actually knows: http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the phone set up using basic privacy recommendations. Here is the specific question. The goal is for someone to simply answer the question. Why would iOS be safer from spying than a well set up Android phone? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/WRA6ay_bwME |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Aug 02 04:32PM -0400 In article <nnqtg2$h0e$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks > > you've been told before by several people. why would yet another time > > make a difference? you aren't interested in answers. > In other words, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. insults just prove my point even more. > > around, hasn't thought of that scenario? > I only care about facts. > You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. no you don't. you only care about trolling. that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense. you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type of discussion with you. > To that end, I opened a separate thread in the android newsgroup to ask the > question of how Google can possibly mine "my" data, given that I have the > phone set up using basic privacy recommendations. you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even if you did know, you still can't. you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 01:35AM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 16:32:12 -0400, nospam wrote: >> I only care about facts. >> You only read/comprehend glossy Apple marketing literature. > no you don't. you only care about trolling. We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to purchase. Me? I don't live in the fear-filled environment you live in, yet, I am as privacy conscious as anyone, so I simply ameliorate the risk by judicious understanding of fact. If you have a single fact to your argument - you'll place it in the aforementioned thread - but - of course - you have no facts. Once the Google Play ID is removed (which also removed the Advertising ID at the same time, at least from the Android Settings menus), and once apps are globally denied certain information (such as location), my hypothesis is that the Android device is just as insecure from privacy breaches as the iOS device. We're different you and I. 1. You *only* see fear. 2. I only see *solutions*. 1. You only spout what Apple Marketing tells you to spout. It makes you feel better about your fear. 2. I simply report facts and I simply ask for facts. I'm not afraid of facts. > that's why you're avoiding answering what is a simple question and > spewing the usual apple bashing nonsense. If the answer to the question were as simple as you say, then you wouldn't need copious cryptic self-serving riddles just to save face. I'm not in the least bit worried about my decision in iOS products and Android products looking good. You bought on fear. I bought in price:performance. We're different that way. > you ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then > snip and change the topic, which makes it *impossible* to have any type > of discussion with you. I could repeat the question a thousand times, and you'd still *never* answer it, simply because you're a fear monger and I'm simply looking for facts. To you, it makes you feel better if you spew marketing-motivated fact less FUD. To me, it makes me feel better to simply know iron cold hard facts. We're different that way. > you have no idea what they track so you *can't* block it all, and even > if you did know, you still can't. Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process. I'm not *afraid* like you are. I'm simply sensible. Which is why I ask for facts. Not your Apple-marketing-inspired FUD. Remember, you buy *only* on fear. I buy *only* on facts. We're different that way. > you leak data, and it's trivial to tie it all together. Again, as always, you spew forth the garbage that Apple Marketing tells you to spew forth - sans a shred of fact behind your fear-inspired thought process. If you had a single fact, you'd have stated it by now. So, in this case, we're more similar in knowledge, but different in purpose: 1. You don't know the answer but you *still* spout Apple Marketing mantra! 2. I don't know the answer, so I simply ask the question of all. You're afraid of the factual answer. I'm not. We're different that way. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Aug 02 09:43PM -0400 In article <nnrho0$tjj$1@news.mixmin.net>, Aardvarks > We've already established you live in an environment of fear which you try > to ameliorate by purchasing exactly what Apple Marketing tells you to > purchase. nonsense. i purchase whatever best does what i want to do, which includes android devices (3 of them), apple devices and windows pcs (which i'm waiting on win10 anniversary update). in other words, you're full of shit. the fact that you're starting off with bashing proves you're doing nothing but trolling. as i said initially, you've been told many times how info leaks and how google can track people (most of which is obvious), but you flat out refuse to listen. you are not interested in any of it. you think you know everything and refuse to learn. |
| Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com>: Aug 03 03:27AM On Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:43:59 -0400, nospam wrote: > you're full of shit. :) |
| Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de>: Aug 03 10:33AM +0200 Am 02.08.2016 um 18:40 schrieb Jeff Liebermann: > True. However, unless you use an RF anechoic chamber, the influences > of the room environment will have a bigger influence than the antenna > patterns. In an open-field scenario (as Aardvark claims to have) that should not be a problem - while the main antenna orientation might still have an influence. Especially if by chance the main antenna direction is covered by the holding hand... > produce substantially different performance results. I don't have > time to speculate on why, but let's just say that there are is a large > list of uncontrolled factors that have an effect on the measurements. Agreed. > One can eliminate a fair number with a $100 million RF anechoic > chamber, but that's a bit beyond my present means. Not only yours... ;-) > interference. Offhand, my guess(tm) is about a 1/100 duty cycle. Were > any of these packets to collide with traffic from a nearby wireless > device, the error would be about 1% from the collision. I was not referring to interfering traffic from the multiple devices, but actually about RF interference which might (or might not) influence the signal strength as received by the chips inside the phone. Basically increasing 'background noise'. And this factor does not have to be symmetric, as it will depend on antenna design, circuit board design, case design (and materials), ... > to pass packets or where the connection becomes unstable. At worst, > packet collisions will "blurr" the results somewhat. I don't consider > proximity to be a problem. Proximity (of the several devices used for measurements) might be a problem. How can you rule that out? > when carrying it will minimize proximity effects and antenna detuning, > while still allowing one monitor the device. It's far from perfect, > but methinks good enough. Agreed. >> - I don't have any Android device available, least several different ones. > Borrow one or invite your friends to the test. Or, are all your > friends Apple users? What a horrible thought. Yes, they are. And that's not at all a horrible thought (unless you're thinking like Aardvarks). > determine how far you can operate before it quits. You can do that > with ping, which hogs very little bandwidth, and will not interfere > with the neighbors streaming wireless connection. It's not a problem of bandwidth. But a matter of RF interference, and that might change any second, e.g. depending on the current usage of the other networks. I can control the usage of mine, but not the usage of the other ones. And as the frequency band is crowded on any channel, I don't stand a chance of finding an unused set of channels (for 2.4GHz I'd need three neighboring channels to be sufficiently safe, for 5GHz I'd have to look that figure up). > working and dead will be quite abrupt, usually within a meter or two. > If you find a straight line path that's about 50 meters long, you > should be ok. And that's already where I would fail. > to happen without an extremely well controlled environment. However, > when comparing two devices, the conditions are identical, and > therefore the comparison is quite valid. In general that's true, however how good is any result if you can't rule out at least major influencing factors (beyond the ones to be tested)? > You probably spent more time finding excuses to not run the test than > it would take to actually perform it. Thanks for at least thinking > about the problems involved. I did not spend more than one second on any reasons why I won't execute the test, as the answer is simple: It's Aardvarks' claim, and the past 'discussions' with him here have given ample proof that he won't even accept the best founded test results. If they're not supporting his view, that is. So I resort to 'his claim - his proof'. And as he always claims that he proves everything he says (something already found to be not true time after time), I won't even start going down this path. There are some more reasons I could bring up, but I'll leave it for now. Best regards, Michael |
| isw <isw@witzend.com>: Aug 02 10:52AM -0700 Trying to find out why operation is erratic, I measured the voltage across the hard-wired pushbutton in the garage. The button is illuminated by a red LED, which is in series with a 1k resistor across the switch. The LED is always on. Pressing the switch shorts the resistor-LED pair and operates the door. The puzzle is that when I disconnect the LED-switch assembly and measure the voltage across the wires from the opener unit, I get only a couple hundred millivolts DC, and less AC. How is it possible for the LED to light with only 200 mV across it? Isaac |
| frank <frank@invalid.net>: Aug 02 07:32PM > the voltage across the wires from the opener unit, I get only a couple > hundred millivolts DC, and less AC. > How is it possible for the LED to light with only 200 mV across it? it's a pulsed waveform that you can't measure with a regular DVM maybe? |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment