On 14/10/2021 16:55, Tim+ wrote:
> Your preference maybe but it makes a nonsense of the order of replies.
> It’s been a USENET convention since the year dot for good reasons.
> Ignoring those reason because you’re lazy or think you know better is rude.

When just about the only users of USENET were academics who had free
access and would be using Teletypes. I think they rather resented the
'great unwashed' being able to use it.

On 14/10/2021 16:55, Tim+ wrote:
> Your preference maybe but it makes a nonsense of the order of replies.

How Tim?

All the messages I see are stacked with the new one at the top and the
unread ones in bold.

I am willing to learn.

And contribute.

Where This Can Not Possibly Work comes from escapes me. If you are
talking about the topic I am certainly not the only person who has
doubts about Openreach making the transfer seamless.

Tony

That's me for sure.

Stupid for putting the messages in the order they come in so I can spot
the new ones.

What a Chump!

Stand in the corner Mr Unwashed!

T

I think they rather resented the
> 'great unwashed' being able to use it.
>

Tony Gamble wrote:
>
>
> On 14/10/2021 16:55, Tim+ wrote:
>> Your preference maybe but it makes a nonsense of the order of replies.
>
> How Tim?

surely someone has given you this example?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?

On 14/10/2021 16:55, Tim+ wrote:
>
> Tony Gamble <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>> But I do prefer to see what people answer without having to scroll
>> through a lot of text I have already read.

Actually, so do I ...

> Your preference maybe but it makes a nonsense of the order of replies.

It doesn't because no-one reads a post in isolation any more, because we
have on-screen threaded readers that enable us to to move from post to
reply to further reply in logical order, without needing to be reminded
of the entire preceding conversation before we read each new contribution.

> It’s been a USENET convention since the year dot for good reasons.

*Originally* it was for good reasons, because in those days they were
using terminal printouts, not screens, so it was necessary to preserve
the logical order of contributions for printing out, but that need has
been dead and gone for 50 years or more! The only reason people need to
do it now is to avoid usenet jobs-worths like you wasting everyone's
time by complaining, and that's not really a reason at all.

> Ignoring those reason because you’re lazy or think you know better is rude.

Keeping to inefficient habits of old technology 50 or more years after
the invention of better technology is just plain stupid.

>> If I don't understand the answer I will then look at the text - just as
>> when I reply to an email I put my reply above the message I am replying to.
>
> That the egocentric approach. You assume that only you are reading and
> responding to this thread. Works fine for emails, NOT for USENET where
> threads have multiple contributors.

It would save countless hours of scrolling down to the bottom of each
new post, merely to see at the bottom of an entire thread's history ...
+1
.... or something equally unedifying. The real problem with usenet is
that far too many people do not bother to trim the quoted text down to
the minimum that is strictly needed for their reply to make sense.

Failing to trim appropriately is a far worse crime than top-posting.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/10/2021 14:57, Tweed wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 12:45, Tweed wrote:
>>> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <sk91i4$562$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <sk8tdv$m84$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 14/10/2021 09:16, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Fast forward to 2025 and wonder if DECT phones will be in as short a
>>>>>>>>> supply as 2021 turkeys?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because the vast majority of the population will have ditched
>>>>>>>> having, or needing 'that badly' a 'landline' phone by then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wouldn‘t surprise me if BT and the other major suppliers offer a
>>>>>>> hub with an integrated DECT base station and perhaps the offer of a
>>>>>>> handset for very little extra money. Fritzbox routers already offer
>>>>>>> integrated DECT base stations, so it‘s not exactly a bleeding edge
>>>>>>> idea. A single DECT handset is around £20. A lot easier than faffing
>>>>>>> around with extension wiring. This will cover the vast bulk of users
>>>>>>> who still wish to have a landline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not good in this house with 1900's brick walls. I have extension wiring
>>>>>> and DECT phones
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You can get DECT repeaters. I‘ve used them at work.
>>>>
>>>> That might be the outcome in future
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks like BT’s advanced cordless phones use Wi-Fi (though they are very
>>> cagey on the subject), so decent Wi-Fi coverage might be what’s needed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ISTR they make clear both Advanced and Essential phones are DECT phones
>> with base stations that connect to the router wirelessly. I wouldn't
>> say it's cagey of them not to bother consumers with the frequencies and
>> channels they use but I've not gone looking for such details. Have BT
>> refused to disclose them?
>>
>
> Perhaps cagey is the wrong term, but in all their public facing blurb about
> them they don’t seem to mention the word DECT. I’ve just downloaded the
> user guide and it mentions pressing the WPS button on the router to pair.
> So that led me to conclude they were Wi-Fi. But then right at the end it
> gives the frequency range used, which are the DECT band. So presumably the
> WPS button on a BT hub is dual purpose.
>

I've just looked again at the bumf I have (as designated one-eyed man
for family members expecting them) and that refers explicitly to DECT
settings for phones; and to up to 5 phones being supported. So I now
think it's a simple matter of DECT phones and the Smart Hub 2 being a
DECT base. I was wrong about the base for the phones which seems to be a
dumb charger. Makes more sense as a UPS for the Hub then allows calls.

All way OT for u.t.dtv so I'll shut up now.

a.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Now that's not fair.

I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the top.

And I always trimmed the previous posts.

Shall we close this element of the topic now?

I will do my best to match my questions with as many contributions as I can.

Tony

On 14/10/2021 17:30, Java Jive wrote:
> to avoid usenet jobs-worths like you wasting everyone's time by complaining,

On 14/10/2021 17:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> surely someone has given you this example?
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?

It's an artificial example that doesn't apply when people read
successive posts in a threaded newsreader.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/10/2021 17:54, Tony Gamble wrote:
>
> Now that's not fair.
>
> I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the top.
>
> And I always trimmed the previous posts.

Rather shot yourself in the foot there, I was agreeing with you, the
jobs-worth jibe was aimed at Tim, not you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Too complicated for an eighty two year old - ex Rediffusion and LWT so
that dates me.

Shall we move on to sorting out BT and DV?

T

On 14/10/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 17:54, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>
>> Now that's not fair.
>>
>> I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the top.
>>
>> And I always trimmed the previous posts.
>
> Rather shot yourself in the foot there, I was agreeing with you, the
> jobs-worth jibe was aimed at Tim, not you.
>

Java Jive wrote:

> It's an artificial example that doesn't apply when people read successive posts
> in a threaded newsreader.

OK, to save you imagining it with quote levels ...

> Fourth Person wrote:
>
>> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>
>> Third Person wrote:
>>
>>> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>>
>>>> Second Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Top-posting.
>>>>
>>>>> First Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?

On 14/10/2021 18:38, Andy Burns wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> It's an artificial example that doesn't apply when people read
>> successive posts in a threaded newsreader.
>
> OK, to save you imagining it with quote levels ...
>
>> Fourth Person wrote:
>>> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>
>>> Third Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>>>
>>>>> Second Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Top-posting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?

I repeat, it's an artificial example that doesn't apply when people read
successive posts in a threaded newsreader:

I read that the 1st person wrote:
What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?
| --I read that the 2nd person replied:
| Top-posting.
| ----I read that the 3rd person replied:
| Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
| ------I read that the 4th person replied:
Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.

But it hasn't messed up the order in which I've read the text at all.

The convention only ever made sense in the days of printed terminal output.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> It's an artificial example that doesn't apply when people read successive posts
>> in a threaded newsreader.
>
> OK, to save you imagining it with quote levels ...
>
>> Fourth Person wrote:
>>
>>> Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>>>
>>> Third Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>>>>
>>>>> Second Person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Top-posting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First Person wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the most annoying thing in e-mail and USENET?
>
>

There are arguments for both top and bottom posting. But consistency is
needed. A mixture of both styles is very confusing. Usenet conventionally
uses bottom posting, and it’s probably best if everyone sticks to that.

On 14/10/2021 18:24, Tony Gamble wrote:
> Too complicated for an eighty two year old - ex Rediffusion and LWT so
> that dates me.
>
> Shall we move on to sorting out BT and DV?
>
> T
>
> On 14/10/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 14/10/2021 17:54, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that's not fair.
>>>
>>> I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the
>>> top.
>>>
>>> And I always trimmed the previous posts.
>>
>> Rather shot yourself in the foot there, I was agreeing with you, the
>> jobs-worth jibe was aimed at Tim, not you.
>>

Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too? :-)

On 14/10/2021 20:16, SH wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 18:24, Tony Gamble wrote:
>> Too complicated for an eighty two year old - ex Rediffusion and LWT so
>> that dates me.
>>
>> Shall we move on to sorting out BT and DV?
>>
>> T
>>
>> On 14/10/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2021 17:54, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now that's not fair.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the
>>>> top.
>>>>
>>>> And I always trimmed the previous posts.
>>>
>>> Rather shot yourself in the foot there, I was agreeing with you, the
>>> jobs-worth jibe was aimed at Tim, not you.
>>>
>
> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too? :-)

OK.

I will toe the line.

I will post below.

You win. I lose.

Eighty years of Usenet protocol survives.

Well done.

Now can we get back to the topic.

T

In article <sk9vls$oko$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
SH <i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 18:24, Tony Gamble wrote:
> > Too complicated for an eighty two year old - ex Rediffusion and LWT so
> > that dates me.
> >
> > Shall we move on to sorting out BT and DV?
> >
> > T
> >
> > On 14/10/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
> >> On 14/10/2021 17:54, Tony Gamble wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Now that's not fair.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't complain. I simply altered my reader to put my reply at the
> >>> top.
> >>>
> >>> And I always trimmed the previous posts.
> >>
> >> Rather shot yourself in the foot there, I was agreeing with you, the
> >> jobs-worth jibe was aimed at Tim, not you.
> >>

> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too? :-)

my parents had one.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 14/10/2021 21:54, charles wrote:
> In article<sk9vls$oko$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> SH<i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too? :-)
>
> my parents had one.
>
I've still got one and I still use it occasionally.
However, it isn't really relevant to digital tv

<diversion ends>

Jim

On 18:16 11 Oct 2021, Andy Burns said:

> Pamela wrote:
>
>> It will be interesting to see how well the workrounds (such as
>> priority flags on packets) overcome the inherently asynchronous
>> nature of TCP.
>
> SIP (over TCP) is used to "connect" the VoIP call, but then RTP
> (over UDP) is used for the actual media, better to forget about
> dropped packets than report them missing and hope the retransmission
> gets back to you before the audio buffer empties...

I've experienced horribly distracting retransmission with UDP-based
Google Duo on Android. There's buffering somewhere which replays and
speeds up the otherparty's voice to catch up on omitted speech. When I
get those artefacts I switch over to POTS or a cellphone.

Maybe BT is better placed to prevent drop outs in the first place.

On 14/10/2021 21:54, charles wrote:
>> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too?:-)
> my parents had one.

I am sure Greta Thunderbox will approve, nice and green.

On 14/10/2021 22:15, Indy Jess John wrote:
> I've still got one and I still use it occasionally.
> However, it isn't really relevant to digital tv

Now a wind up digital TV would be real news.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:45:21 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 14/10/2021 21:54, charles wrote:
>>> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too?:-)
>> my parents had one.
>
>I am sure Greta Thunderbox will approve, nice and green.

She's quite nice, in a quirky way, but very green.

--
brightside S9

On 14/10/2021 23:05, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> She's quite nice, in a quirky way, but very green.

Not so sure about being nice, very strange young woman.

I am sure she looked very green when sailing across the Atlantic in a
small yacht!

On 14/10/2021 22:46, MB wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 22:15, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> I've still got one and I still use it occasionally.
>> However, it isn't really relevant to digital tv
>
> Now a wind up digital TV would be real news.
>

wind up radios do actually exist, They were invented by a Trevor Bayliss
if my memory serves me right.....

On 15/10/2021 08:52, SH wrote:
> wind up radios do actually exist, They were invented by a Trevor Bayliss
> if my memory serves me right.....

I know, I had one.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 08:49:46 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 14/10/2021 23:05, BrightsideS9 wrote:
>> She's quite nice, in a quirky way, but very green.
>
>Not so sure about being nice, very strange young woman.
>
>I am sure she looked very green when sailing across the Atlantic in a
>small yacht!

i was thinking of further meaningn of green.

--
brightside S9