On 05/26/2022 03:03 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Bev,
>
>> Not sure HOW this should work, though. Doctoring is a high-stress
>> high-skill profession which -- at least for the competent -- deserves high
>> pay. Nurses are worth every cent they make and more.
>
> I'm afraid you're looking at the medical profession thru some rose-tinted
> glasses.
>
> Yes, I think that working in a high-stress environment should be rewarded.
> The same for having a lot knowledge. But the largest part of the problem
> is that people who are in a lot of pain - or just think they could be
> dying - will have no problem with signing over all that they have. And
> hospitals know that, and bill accordingly.
>
> As for the nurses high stress ? Thats more often than not a management game
> : how much work can we squeeze outof such worker-drones before they break
> down (because they can't stand to see their depending-on-them patients in
> any kind of discomfort but have no other choice), and how much does it cost
> to replace them. The same goes for a number of customer-facing jobs.
> Helpdesk personell seems to have quite a high turn-over because of it. But
> for some reason you seldom hear anyone mention that they do such a good job
> and should be given more support ...

That's because they're mostly incompetent. If you're lucky you can
invest a couple of hours and MAYBE contact someone who can actually
answer your question, but don't count on it.

When we had Charter cable, usenet didn't update for several days. I
called customer support. The highest level supervisor available didn't
even know what usenet was -- he thought it was maybe some satellite
service that they didn't support. The usenet feed was provided by a
company called something like Highwinds, but they said I had to talk to
my ISP because they didn't deal with end-users. The problem got fixed
within hours, though.

Automated chat functions are the most useless -- their solutions are the
same ones that you rejected because they were irrelevant to the problem
at hand.

>> Depending on your viewpoint, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I really
>> don't want any part of providing personal care to the drug-addicted loon
>> down the street who hits random people with a hunk of rebar.
>
> I don't want to pay for a (heavy) smoker either. Or that guy who's hitting
> the bottle a few times a week. Or anyone with another than optimum BMI. Or
> anyone in a prison. Or that guy who likes another rugby club than I do. Or
> that guy who looked at my sister funny ...

Some of these people HAVE to be supported some way; you can't have
people starving to death in the streets or attacking strangers with
blunt instruments. Tax money/public service is the only way. I do NOT
want to have to deal with such people personally. Or really care what
happens to them, actually. There are too many worthwhile people in
serious trouble who get no help...

> Yes, I also would not like it. But if you are going to choose who gets to
> live and who gets to die on a "do I think he deserves it" grounds than you
> are not really ethical.

The choice gets made anyway. Is a majority vote any more ethical than
individual action?

>> Spilling a paper cup of coffee on oneself isn't really a once-per-century
>> kind of occurrence.
>
> Lets pull some numbers into that shall we : there where several *billion*
> cups poored /over a number of years/. less than 800 caused a problem. lets
> assume 4B and divide it by 800. Thats a problem of 1 in each 5,000,000 for
> the total of those years involved.
>
> In comparision the chance of being stuck is 1 in 1,222,000 /for a single
> year/.
>
> https://www.erieinsurance.com/blog/struck-by-lightning
>
> IOW, you are *way* more likely to be struck by lightning than getting into a
> problem with McDs coffee.
>
> ... Yet I have not ever seen a lawcase involving the demand for lots of
> money because there was no faraday cage at the position where someone got
> struck ...
>
>> Not everyone is a thief or grifter, just enough of them that we need to be
>> careful.
>
> I'm afraid that I'm conviced that pretty-much /everyone/ is a grifter,
> depending on the percieved tastyness of the "bait" and the ammount of
> expected repercussion.

"OK, so we're not determining whether or not you're a whore, we're just
haggling about the price." I wonder if Churchill really said that.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Is there any way I can help without actually getting involved?"
-- Jennifer, WKRP

On 05/26/2022 08:52 AM, Chris wrote:
> Bev wrote:
>> Depending on your viewpoint, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I
>> really don't want any part of providing personal care to the
>> drug-addicted loon down the street who hits random people with a hunk of
>> rebar.
>
> Why not? Are they not a person in need of help?
>
> A just and fair society is one where we help those in need.

I don't want to PERSONALLY take care of such people. We pay taxes so
that SOMEBODY will do this distasteful but necessary job.

>>>> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in
>>>> their behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee
>>>> on *your* lap is not reasonable behaviour.
>>
>> It was ultimately decided that it was irresponsible of McD to sell
>> coffee capable of inflicting 3rd degree burns if spilled. I can agree.
>> Spilling a paper cup of coffee on oneself isn't really a
>> once-per-century kind of occurrence.
>
> It is astonishingly rare: 0.000014% of McD coffees bought end up scalding
> someone. I'm willing to bet that more people choke on BigMacs.

The only actual VIOLENCE I've experienced in what must be a very
sheltered life is walking through Georgetown to meet a friend at an ice
cream shop and seeing a guy sitting in an alley bleeding. I asked if he
needed help. He waved me off.

Still, we lock our doors and avoid sketchy neighborhoods.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Is there any way I can help without actually getting involved?"
-- Jennifer, WKRP

On 26-05-2022 21:41, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 05/26/2022 03:03 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> "OK, so we're not determining whether or not you're a whore, we're just
> haggling about the price."  I wonder if Churchill really said that.

Nah, it was Oscar Wilde.

Bev,

> The Kiwi was dumb enough to want to leave,

Ah, that "leaving == dumb" was the part that I missed. Thanks.

> Dangerous. But do not attribute to malevolence...

I this case I do not see how they could benefit from it, so possibly just a
bad user-interface design.

In all other cases you should take into account who benefits from the
mistake, and not assume stupidity if its (consistently) them. It would be
adding insult onto injury.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Bev,

> That's because they're mostly incompetent. If you're lucky you can invest
> a couple of hours and MAYBE contact someone who can actually answer your
> question, but don't count on it.

Tell me about it. Two weeks ago from a sunday to amonday my TV's channels
went on the fritz, and even after waiting a day before going to the cable
companies store (which also sold/leased phones) those employees knew nothing
about anything. Neither did the helpdesk they have access to. At the end
of that week they still knew zilch.

Luckily an older configuration (which I had noted down quite some time ago)
worked.

At *no point* in a week they knew /anything/ about what was going on. They
where pretty-much just there to take the brunt of the customers very likely
discontent in having to ask well-payed technicians re-configure their
equipment - for a problem based with the cable company.

> Automated chat functions are the most useless --

You mean those "helpdesk" people who are *not allowed* to function as
anything else than a human "microsoft sam" and which you, as the customer,
dumbly has to follow ? Yep, absolutily useless. :-(

And ofcourse the seconds step - after the suggestion to replace all the TV
cables - is to just have the TV do a cold reinstall of all the channels.
Comparable to yesteryears "Lets see if reinstalling Win98 helps". :-(

> "OK, so we're not determining whether or not you're a whore, we're just
> haggling about the price." I wonder if Churchill really said that.

Googeling for that phrase seems to indicate that quite a few people have
said it :

https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:00:32 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 05/25/2022 06:55 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2022 15:43:38 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 05/24/2022 11:27 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/24/2022 12:02 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/23/2022 01:57 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just being unable to use TB38 is entirely sufficient for me to wish a painful
>>>>>>>>> death upon the appropriate google personnel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3/4 of them use gmail via the phone app
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd guess 2/3 of what's left use the web interface
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So maybe 10% using IMAP or POP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many of those using thunderbird
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many of those under Linux?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many of those sticking with an old TB version?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you wonder why they haven't written a guide that's directly applicable to
>>>>>>>> you? If you creep onto such a specific limb, surely you have have to develop
>>>>>>>> your own "knack" of knowing what applies, what doesn't and what you have to test
>>>>>>>> for yourself because you're essentially unique?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am VERY unique!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel sorry for all those people who are using suboptimal facilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's less optimal than running the risk of losing access to all your
>>>>>> emails?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that more likely to happen if I trust to their continued existence
>>>>> in the cloud rather than on my own computer?
>>>>
>>>> You'll lose access to any new email if you don't change to use an
>>>> alternative method to connect to gmail.
>>>>
>>>> But if the cloud is your issue why are you using gmail at all? Just get a
>>>> traditional email server.
>>>
>>>If I use ONLY IMAP, all my email is in the cloud.
>>
>> That's obviously not true, but the more interesting question is how did
>> you arrive at that?
>
>If you delete it with one device you delete it for ALL devices. Surely
>google doesn't reach out to YOUR phone and delete entries. If you copy
>messages to a 'local' folder that's completely different, of course.
>But lacking that, you're just reading a website with each of your
>devices. What part of "cloud" am I not understanding?

It's IMAP that I think you're not understanding, but instead of doing an
IMAP 101 primer, why don't you tell us exactly what you want and what
you don't want, so folks can tell you whether IMAP can do those things
and then possibly how to do it with your preferred email client.

When you start by claiming that if you "use ONLY IMAP, all [your] email
is in the cloud", it's hard to go from there because it's not true.

>>>Once lightning-strike and we have a problem...
>>
>> How so? How many million people currently use IMAP, and how many
>> lightning strikes have there been? If anything, IMAP is much more
>> secure, if you care about your email.
>
>That was a metaphor. Remember English class in maybe 6th grade? The
>actual list is probably fairly long: hacking, fire/flood/power outage
>at the server farm, your ISP goes down for an unspecified time,
>ransomware, a jerk hits your cable node with his car, a careless backhoe
>operator severs your cable/fiber...

I think you're asking what happens if you can't access your mail server
for some period of time, and the answer is that the protocol that you
use to retrieve email (POP vs IMAP) is irrelevant, in that case. If you
can't access your mail server, you won't be able to send or receive
email for the duration of the service outage. Email that you've already
retrieved remains available, of course, exactly the same for both
protocols.

>>>It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own stuff within reach.
>>
>> As above, obviously false.
>
>Any chance you're Rod Speed? You sound an awful lot like 'them'.

I thought you had claimed that IMAP is "ALL cloud", which is false, so I
apologize if I misunderstood. Rod Speed would never do that.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/26/2022 08:52 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Bev wrote:
>>> Depending on your viewpoint, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I
>>> really don't want any part of providing personal care to the
>>> drug-addicted loon down the street who hits random people with a hunk of
>>> rebar.
>>
>> Why not? Are they not a person in need of help?
>>
>> A just and fair society is one where we help those in need.
>
> I don't want to PERSONALLY take care of such people. We pay taxes so
> that SOMEBODY will do this distasteful but necessary job.

You have previously said you also don't want your taxes spent on such
things either.

On Fri, 27 May 2022 00:32:25 -0500
Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
Missed this - but how many people on here actually use gmail? My
killfile is a bit light on this machine.

mechanic wrote:

> Actually it was Andy Burns who wrote:
>
>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
>
> Missed this - but how many people on here actually use gmail?
I rarely use mine, obviously you can't have any google account (e.g. for
android) without it also being a gmail account. I used to use it purely for
mailing list memberships to keep my main mailbox uncluttered, but no longer do
that, so it's only used for whatever security alerts and offers google send to
it, and the occasional test email.

I only added gmail to thunderbird when people started getting het up about
oAuth2, to check there wasn't anything to worry about.

Char,

> When you start by claiming that if you "use ONLY IMAP, all [your]
> email is in the cloud", it's hard to go from there because it's
> not true.

Instead of expecting all the explanation to come from Bev, why don't you try
to explain why you think he's wrong?

For that matter, he already explained how he thinks it works, but I do not
see you respond to it in any way. Why ?

And by the way, I think you are confusing IMAP with what a random
email-client program could be doing with it.

FYI, I can (ab)use IMAP to behave exacly like POP (only leaving read
messages on my client machine) and similary (ab)use POP to behave like IMAP
(leave the message on the server and not making local copies).

The point is that POP is *not* designed to keep copies on the server and if
you want to keep them you need to make a local copy, while IMAP *is*
designed to keep the origional message on the server, which means that /you
do not need/ to make a local copy.

And that latter part does mean that all your /origional/ messages are stored
"in the cloud", with the different client programs *possibly* only having
local copies of a few, the ones that have been accessed from that device.

.... and the only reason to make such local copies when using IMAP is because
you either do not trust the IMAP servers owner(s), do not trust that you can
connect to it at all times, or do not trust that another device having
access to the same IMAP account will not delete them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <t6nlkr$1acj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
<address@not.available> wrote:

>
> > Spilling a paper cup of coffee on oneself isn't really a once-per-century
> > kind of occurrence.
>
> Lets pull some numbers into that shall we : there where several *billion*
> cups poored /over a number of years/. less than 800 caused a problem. lets
> assume 4B and divide it by 800. Thats a problem of 1 in each 5,000,000 for
> the total of those years involved.
>
> In comparision the chance of being stuck is 1 in 1,222,000 /for a single
> year/.
>
> https://www.erieinsurance.com/blog/struck-by-lightning
>
> IOW, you are *way* more likely to be struck by lightning than getting into a
> problem with McDs coffee.

so what?

mcdonald's knowingly sold a product that could (and did) cause bodily
injury and failed to do anything about it.

that's illegal.

comparing it to lightning demonstrates a sheer lack of knowledge about
the facts of the mcdonald's case.

it also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about lightning.

many buildings, particularly taller ones, are *required* to have
lightning arrestors so that in the event of a lightning strike, people
in the building are safe.

in your world, a lightning strike is rare, so what if it hits the
building and causes a fire or electrocutes people inside.

you're actually making the opposite point you think you're making.

it's also clear that you do not care about safety.

as i said in another post, it's a bit like the ford pinto issue in the
1970s, where ford calculated that modifying the vehicle so that it
didn't explode in a rear-end collision was more expensive than paying
off people and their families who were injured or killed.

In article <t6oioi$gqf$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> You'll lose access to any new email if you don't change to use an
> >>> alternative method to connect to gmail.
> >>>
> >>> But if the cloud is your issue why are you using gmail at all? Just get a
> >>> traditional email server.
> >>
> >>If I use ONLY IMAP, all my email is in the cloud.
> >
> > That's obviously not true, but the more interesting question is how did
> > you arrive at that?
>
> If you delete it with one device you delete it for ALL devices. Surely
> google doesn't reach out to YOUR phone and delete entries. If you copy
> messages to a 'local' folder that's completely different, of course.
> But lacking that, you're just reading a website with each of your
> devices. What part of "cloud" am I not understanding?

quite a bit, and it's not limited to only what you call 'cloud'.

> >>Once lightning-strike and we have a problem...
> >
> > How so? How many million people currently use IMAP, and how many
> > lightning strikes have there been? If anything, IMAP is much more
> > secure, if you care about your email.
>
> That was a metaphor. Remember English class in maybe 6th grade? The
> actual list is probably fairly long: hacking, fire/flood/power outage
> at the server farm, your ISP goes down for an unspecified time,
> ransomware, a jerk hits your cable node with his car, a careless backhoe
> operator severs your cable/fiber...

if any of that happens, you won't be sending or receiving email or much
else until the event is resolved, whether or not you use imap.

also, fire/flood will destroy everything in your house, including your
backups, which based on your description in other posts, aren't
actually backups.

meanwhile, everything in the cloud will be unaffected because the cloud
is built upon redundancy and reliability, including multiple data
centers in multiple locations, making it almost impossible to lose
data. some of them have 11 9s of reliability, which is not anything
anyone can even approach on their own.

In article <t6lqev$fr2$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>>> Over here anyone who tries to sue a company because they killed their cat
> >>>> in
> >>>> one of their magnetrons because previously drying the beast in an oven
> >>>> worked fine would be "laughed", possibly literally, outof court. Our
> >>>> legal
> >>>> system (still) doesn't reward stupidity like that.
> >>>
> >>> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.
> >>
> >> Nope. The law here prevents that. It assumes people are reasonable in their
> >> behaviour. So suing McDs because *you* spilled *your* hot coffee on *your*
> >> lap is not reasonable behaviour.
> >
> > it is when mcdonald's, by their own admission, knowingly served food
> > that was unfit for human consumption, in particular, coffee that was
> > about 20-30 degrees hotter than other restaurants and could cause
> > severe burns within seconds, without any warning of the danger.
>
> So just because other restaurants serve cold coffee, they should do the
> same? lol

nobody was serving cold coffee.

it's very simple: mcdonald's sold a product they knew could (and did)
cause injuries, which occurred at the rate of approximately once every
5 days, and did absolutely nothing to mitigate it. they did not even
test for its safety.

that's both unacceptable and illegal.

other restaurants served hot coffee, but nowhere near hot enough to
cause instant burns.

> > mcdonald stated the high temperature created an aroma that increased
> > sales.
> >
> > there were more than 700 burns in the previous ten years (that's about
> > one *every* *five* days*), including children and instances where
> > mcdonald's staff spilled it, and did nothing to reduce that number.
>
> In a population of 300m, that's tiny. I mean how many billions of coffees
> do they sell in 10 years?

> 5bn apparently
> https://www.shopfood.com/restaurants/mcdonalds-coffee/

that was actually one of mcdonald's claims, that the number of burns
out of billions of cups coffee sold was minor. so what if people were
injured. no big deal. they're just a number on a spreadsheet.

not surprisingly, the jury found that to be reprehensible.

it's a bit like the ford pinto in the 1970s, where ford knew the
vehicle could explode in a rear-end collision but sold it anyway.

ford chose to not fix the problem because statistically, it would be
cheaper to pay off the families of who are injured or killed than make
changes to the design of the vehicle so that it was actually safe.

more recently, bridgestone found a problem with their tires and chose
to recall them *before* any of them failed and caused harm. that's how
it's supposed to work.

<https://www.bridgestoneamericas.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022/bri
dgestone-recalls-certain-firestone-transforce-tires>
There are no known accidents or injuries involving tires subject to
this recall. However, Bridgestone has determined that affected tires
were not manufactured according to specification, and this could pose
a safety risk. Bridgestone has notified regulatory agencies in the
U.S. and Canada in accordance with applicable laws.

in your world, a couple of tire blowouts and resulting car crashes out
of billions of miles driven is no big deal. so what if a few people
die.

> > ms. liebeck initially asked that mcdonald's pay her medical expenses,
> > which mcdonald's had done in previous cases, in this case, about $20k.
> >
> > mcdonald's said no, offering only $800.
> >
> > ms. liebeck sued, ultimately going to trial after attempts to settle
> > out of court failed.
> >
> > mcdonald's was found to have a 'willful, reckless, malicious or wanton
> > disregard' for the safety of its patrons (and not just ms. liebeck).
>
> By serving hot drinks? Sure. It may be the ruling but it's still dumb. The
> law often gets things wrong.

not that often, and in this case, it definitely did not.

the law correctly states that you can't intentionally sell a product
that causes harm.

that's why there are various safety tests, product recalls, etc.

like you, the jury initially thought the whole thing was a farce. after
all, some old lady spilled hot coffee on herself and sued.

except that after learning the facts of the case, much of it from
mcdonald's own testimony (which makes it even more compelling), the
jury realized that mcdonald's didn't give a shit about the safety of
their patrons.

like ford and the pinto, customers were just a number on a spreadsheet.

in previous instances, mcdonald's *did* cover for medical expenses
(which means they knew they were doing something wrong, otherwise why
pay), however, they thought that ms. liebeck was an old lady whom they
could ignore and get out of it cheap.

that turned out to be a bad decision on mcdonald's part.

had mcdonald's simply paid her medical bills ($20k or so) or even
settled in arbitration (which they also refused), as they did in
previous instances, it would not have gone to trial and they wouldn't
have been smacked down in court.

it did go to trial and what the jury heard was that it was *not* just a
one-time event, but a long pattern of unacceptable practices.

put simply, the jury heard *all* of the facts (the trial itself took
about a week) and overwhelmingly concluded that mcdonald's was liable.

> Why not sue the car manufacturer for not providing cup holders?

because cup holders had nothing to do with knowingly serving food that
can burn on contact and is unfit for human consumption as served.

the other incidents include spills *inside* the restaurant, including
on kids (likely spilled by their parents), as well as mcdonald's own
staff spilling it on people in the drive-thru.

cup holders are irrelevant.

> > ms liebeck was awarded $200k in compensatory damages, reduced by 20%
> > because she was found to be partly at fault
>
> Entirely at fault.

nope. only 20% at fault (which is arguably quite generous).

the vehicle was parked and she was the passenger, a perfectly normal
situation in which one would remove the lid of a beverage.

> In related news knives are sharp, flames burn and ice is
> slippy.

you are completely missing the point.

> > (despite that she was the
> > *passenger* in a *parked* vehicle), and an additional $2.7 million in
> > punitive damages,
>
> This is what doesn't exist here. You can only sue for real or actual harm
> or losses. The US punitive payouts are often ridiculous.

she *did* have real and actual harm.

she had third degree burns, requiring skin grafts and a lengthy
recovery.

that's quite a bit more than 'ouch, that was hot'.

she originally asked for her medical expenses to be paid. mcdonald's
said no.

the punitive damages in this case was two days of coffee sales, which
is relatively minor. it was also reduced on appeal, ultimately settling
for an undisclosed sum believed to be a few hundred thousand dollars.

> > which was roughly two days of coffee sales, reduced
> > on appeal and ultimately settled for an undisclosed sum.
> >
> > <https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-
> > cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html>
> > <https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts>
> > <https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/>
> >
> > tl;dr - mcdonald's fucked up. big time.
>
> Nope.

nope right back.

read the facts of the case, not what you imagine them to be.

unlike you, the jury heard all of the facts and overwhelmingly found
that mcdonald's fucked up.

> Yet companies genuinely having wanton and malicious disregard for the harm
> of their products which are killing tens of thousands americans every year
> are free to do so. With no risk to their business.

the ones that do almost always get sued and pay the price.

> Sure. Hot coffee is the real problem.

when it's hot enough to cause immediate burns on contact, yes it is.

other restaurants served hot coffee that did not cause immediate burns.

On May 27, 2022, R.Wieser wrote
(in article<news:t6qfm1$22b$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> Instead of expecting all the explanation to come from Bev, why don't you try
> to explain why you think he's wrong?

Isn't that precisely what you kept doing on this topic repeatedly yourself?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

nospam,

> so what?
>
> mcdonald's knowingly sold a product that could (and did) cause bodily
> injury and failed to do anything about it.
>
> that's illegal.

And knowingly letting someone get struck by lightning isn't ? Its a quaint
world you seem to live in.

> it also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about lightning.

Actualy, it just demonstrates your problem with understanding what you're
reading. Than again, what else is new ?

That article that I linked to talks about *people* getting hit by lightning.
Not buildings, trees, cars or anything else. Just people.

Go take a hike kid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

> > What part of "cloud" am I not understanding?
>
> quite a bit,

But not following it up with even an iota of explanation - just making it
/sound/ as if you know better.

Thats a rather old trick kid, one you should have grown over before your
teenager years. How come you didn't ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

nospam,

>> So just because other restaurants serve cold coffee, they should do
>> the same? lol
>
> nobody was serving cold coffee.

And by it demonstrating that you are absolutily-and-totally missing the
point of an *example*.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

RonTheGuy,

>> Instead of expecting all the explanation to come from Bev, why don't you
>> try
>> to explain why you think he's wrong?
>
> Isn't that precisely what you kept doing on this topic repeatedly
> yourself?

If you thought I did, why didn't you ask me to explain ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On May 27, 2022, R.Wieser wrote
(in article<news:t6ql7v$oj0$4@gioia.aioe.org>):

>>> Instead of expecting all the explanation to come from Bev, why don't you
>>> try
>>> to explain why you think he's wrong?
>>
>> Isn't that precisely what you kept doing on this topic repeatedly
>> yourself?
>
> If you thought I did, why didn't you ask me to explain ?

Because you were snotty and condescending and had no good intentions.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

RonTheGuy,

>> If you thought I did, why didn't you ask me to explain ?
>
> Because you were snotty and condescending and had no good intentions.

Than with that judgement you blocked yourself and thus have only yourself to
blame.

Somewhere along the line I even spelled it out to you guys why I did what I
did and what I expected - just one of you guys to show that he has put some
effort into it - but not even that gave any kind of response.

No kid, if you want to blame someone for something I suggest you look in the
mirror. Or look at one of your thread-friends, all complaining and
demanding, but not willing to do /anything/.

Personally I get the feeling that you have some beef with me for not just
giving you what you demanded, and therefore are throwing mud around to see
if you can anything to stick. Good luck with that. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Andy Burns wrote:

> I rarely use mine, obviously you can't have any google account (e.g. for
> android) without it also being a gmail account.

This is a PSA on the fact Android doesn't require a mothership account
(while iOS not only requires a mothership account to track you, but Apple
keeps that tracking data forever, and worse, Apple _requires_ periodic
logging into that tracking mothership account).

With respect to Android mothership accounts...

I know Andy Burns is well aware there's no need to set up _any_ account on
Android; however others on this ng list may not be aware that Android works
perfectly fine with no account whatsoever set up on the Android device.
<https://i.postimg.cc/NG5pHyBx/aurora10.jpg> No need for a Google Account

Most Google apps (e.g., Google Play Updates and Play Protect, for example,
work just fine _without_ an account set up on the Android phone to Google).
<https://i.postimg.cc/FRnfbBrT/aurora06.jpg> Google Play Store Updates

As for the few Google apps which require an account, Android actually works
far better _without_ those Google apps in my tests over the past few years.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zX9TnVkp/aurora13.jpg> FOSS Google Play Store client
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information.

On 05/26/2022 10:32 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 12:00:32 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com>

> I think you're asking what happens if you can't access your mail server
> for some period of time, and the answer is that the protocol that you
> use to retrieve email (POP vs IMAP) is irrelevant, in that case. If you
> can't access your mail server, you won't be able to send or receive
> email for the duration of the service outage. Email that you've already
> retrieved remains available, of course, exactly the same for both
> protocols.

Of course I can't access new mail when some part of the net is down.
What I object to is the inability to access OLD mail -- perhaps
preparing replies to send when the network goes back up. It always has
come back up again, right?

Outages used to be a lot more common than they are today, but it costs
nothing (hard drive space is CHEAP now) to keep your own stuff within
reach at all times. Well, maybe there will be problems if there's a
power outage in your house and your laptop battery is dead, but we have
to live dangerously sometimes :-)

>>>>It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own stuff within reach.
>>>
>>> As above, obviously false.
>>
>>Any chance you're Rod Speed? You sound an awful lot like 'them'.
>
> I thought you had claimed that IMAP is "ALL cloud", which is false, so I
> apologize if I misunderstood. Rod Speed would never do that.

Unless you go to special efforts (moving your incoming mail to a
'local' folder for processing) IMAP IS entirely in the cloud. When the
net goes down you have NOTHING.

I would wager a dime (my sucker bet) that most users don't even think
about saving stuff in a 'local' hierarchy.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"

On 05/27/2022 12:06 AM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/26/2022 08:52 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> Bev wrote:
>>>> Depending on your viewpoint, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I
>>>> really don't want any part of providing personal care to the
>>>> drug-addicted loon down the street who hits random people with a hunk of
>>>> rebar.
>>>
>>> Why not? Are they not a person in need of help?
>>>
>>> A just and fair society is one where we help those in need.
>>
>> I don't want to PERSONALLY take care of such people. We pay taxes so
>> that SOMEBODY will do this distasteful but necessary job.
>
> You have previously said you also don't want your taxes spent on such
> things either.

I recognize the need to support certain people, but not all people who
want someone else to support them. There's a difference between the
genuinely desperate and simple parasites.

Given the vast amount of money spent on the homeless -- with no
diminution of the problem -- I think it might be worth building a
complete homeless community (housing, medical, food service etc.) that
would actually be desirable to those who otherwise live in tents on the
street. The cost of the small 'tiny house' projects (they appear to be
Tuff Sheds with central bathroom and kitchen facilities) is exorbitant,
but I'm pretty sure that economies of scale would improve matters.

Land out in the desert is cheap. Moreover, people actually CHOOSE to
live their on their own dime. Worth a shot.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"

On 05/27/2022 03:46 AM, mechanic wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 00:32:25 -0500
> Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >>>>>>>> How many gmail users are there? 1.8 billion apparently
>
> Missed this - but how many people on here actually use gmail? My
> killfile is a bit light on this machine.

I use two gmail accounts extensively and exclusively. I don't use
'google groups' for usenet, however, and regard those people as
hopelessly defective.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"

In article <t6qu98$if2$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I think you're asking what happens if you can't access your mail server
> > for some period of time, and the answer is that the protocol that you
> > use to retrieve email (POP vs IMAP) is irrelevant, in that case. If you
> > can't access your mail server, you won't be able to send or receive
> > email for the duration of the service outage. Email that you've already
> > retrieved remains available, of course, exactly the same for both
> > protocols.
>
> Of course I can't access new mail when some part of the net is down.
> What I object to is the inability to access OLD mail -- perhaps
> preparing replies to send when the network goes back up. It always has
> come back up again, right?

wrong.

old mail can easily be accessed without any internet connection at all,
including the ability to write offline replies.

this has all been explained to you many times.

> Outages used to be a lot more common than they are today,

not really, and easily dealt with by using a backup power supply.

> but it costs
> nothing (hard drive space is CHEAP now) to keep your own stuff within
> reach at all times.

it might be cheap but it's at a much higher risk for data loss.

> Well, maybe there will be problems if there's a
> power outage in your house and your laptop battery is dead, but we have
> to live dangerously sometimes :-)

that's the least of the risks.

> >>>>It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own stuff within reach.
> >>>
> >>> As above, obviously false.
> >>
> >>Any chance you're Rod Speed? You sound an awful lot like 'them'.
> >
> > I thought you had claimed that IMAP is "ALL cloud", which is false, so I
> > apologize if I misunderstood. Rod Speed would never do that.
>
> Unless you go to special efforts (moving your incoming mail to a
> 'local' folder for processing) IMAP IS entirely in the cloud. When the
> net goes down you have NOTHING.

that's false.

email is cached locally without any additional effort whatsoever.

email can also be automatically archived locally by using a filter,
something that requires no additional effort beyond creating the filter
once (which is *very* easy) and leaving it active.

> I would wager a dime (my sucker bet) that most users don't even think
> about saving stuff in a 'local' hierarchy.

that's because moving email local to one device prevents it from being
accessed from other devices, greatly limiting its functionality, which
is something nearly everyone does *not* want.

for those who do want a local copy, a much better solution is a shared
archive, however, that requires more effort to set up and maintain.

by far, the easiest solution is let the email provider manage it, since
that's what they're good at.