On 05/25/2022 12:15 AM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/24/2022 12:31 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
>>> Bev,
>>>
>>>> "Let's just remove all the warning labels and see what happens..."
>>>
>>> Going from a shitload of warnings to none ? That's like like going "cold
>>> turkey" on a drugs habbit - the immediate effects will be ... less than
>>> pleasurable.
>>
>> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
>> bathtub..."
>
> And callous as hell. Civilisation has developed as society improved in
> caring after others.
>
>>>> One of my favorites is our very own -- "This product is known to the State
>>>> of California to cause cancer..." or the "This location is known..."
>>>> Pompous as well as useless.
>>>
>>> I'm from Europe, and the plethora of warnings that /have/ to be put on about
>>> everything is a source of a number of jokes.
>>
>> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.

"...<invisible warning blurb..."

> Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
> threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.

You will only file a lawsuit if it's potentially profitable to both
yourself and the lawyer you'll have to hire. You don't have to hire a
lawyer for small claims court (in fact they're forbidden), but if the
defendant loses he can appeal and THEN lawyers get involved. If you're
interested in the mechanics of class-action suits, read Crichton's King
of Torts. Fun even if you're not interested.

If you DO sue in small claims court, request a real judge and not a
'magistrate' or equivalent. They want to be asked back so they won't
make waves -- or do any actual thinking, if thinking is required.

>>> 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.
>
> We do have stronger statutory consumer protections here as well.
>
> It's funny how US culture puts personal responsibility above everything
> else, but as soon as there's an opportunity to sue someone for something
> that you did personal responsibility goes out the window.

Perhaps you are describing two completely different sets of people.

> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.

Which set?

Still, I slipped on the slick marble steps of the local post office
during one of our rare rainstorms. I picked myself up, went inside, did
whatever I was going to do and departed. Afterward I thought I was
really stupid for not suing -- they should have known how slippery those
steps were.

Several years ago a stupid woman hit me with her car while I was
crossing the street on my bicycle. She just didn't see me. She knocked
me off the bike and knocked the seat off the bike too, which was the
bigger nuisance. I yelled at her while she cringeingly apologized. I
could have filed with her insurance, but it didn't seem worth the
trouble for a quart of peroxide and some big band-aids.

I should have at least made her drive me home, though.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

On 05/25/2022 12:44 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> <https://github.com/simonrob/email-oauth2-proxy>
>
> Ahh, looks like it handles IMAP and SMTP, but not POP, presumably wouldn't be
> that hard to extend?

If you say so...

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

On 05/25/2022 01:06 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Bev,
>
>> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
>> bathtub..."
>
> :-) You mean the /remainder/ of that civilization.
>
> On the other hand, the average IQ would probably go up by a few points.

"When a New Zealander emigrates to Australia, the average IQ of both
countries increases."

> On
> the /other/ hand, I've read enough stories about highly-educated people who
> couldn't figure out why their unplugged computer wouldn't work anymore.
>
>> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.
>
> Yep. Put enough iterations of something somewhere and ultimatily the brain
> blanks them out, causing a reverse effect - besides the problem that having
> a lot of them drowns the actually important ones out.

The radio on my Corolla has a red light that means OFF. What kind of
idiot designs a system that teaches us to ignore red lights? Corollas
may take a lot of punishment, but their interiors were clearly designed
by somebody's unemployed brother-in-law to stop the wife from nagging.

>> Give it time. USA culture, like McDonald's, spreads.
>
> Possibly. Time will tell. Heck, maybe the movie "idiocracy" is an actual
> depiction of the future.

You mean that wasn't a documentary?

>>> But AFAIK it resulted inthe company adding a warning that pets should not
>>> be put inside their magnetrons.
>>
>> See?
>
> :-) That was what the /American/ company did for its /American/ customers.

SOMETHING is causing the dumbing down. That's probably just a minor
contribution.

>> I once sprayed dryer spray (remember that?) in my eye because I was
>> careless in aiming.
>
> Can't say I remember it. I'm not even sure what "dryer spray" is ...

Instead of putting 'softening' sheets in the dryer or fabric softener in
the rinse water, there was aerosol spray that you just sprayed inside
the dryer. I can't remember how well it worked because the washer died
soon afterward and for the next 30 years I went to the BIG laundromat
every 3 months or so.

> But yes, I've been careless too, and only escaped injury by the skin of my
> teeth. On the positive side, I still remember it and won't /ever/ repeat
> it.
>
>> The initial pain might have been a clue.
>
> And thats the whole "lets be slow-and-cautious about it" initial "what does
> a flame feel like" experiment. Only after having experienced that pain you
> could start to think about if speed would perhaps be a good idea so you
> won't get hurt again.
>
>> I used a chunk of it to verify some statement that 2-column text crammed
>> in more words than 1-column text of the same dimensions.
>
> I never used it myself, but I remember it for being absolute gibberish.
> Comparing someones work with it isn't a good sign ...

Clearly not. I thought it was faux latin, not an actual quote. Some of
it just doesn't look right. Like 'non illegitimi carborumdum' which we
WISH were the correct expression!

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

On 05/25/2022 01:43 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Civilisation has developed as society improved in
>> caring after others.
>
> I disagree. America sets a /very/ bad example in the way where a simple
> accident needing hospital time can throw the person into poverty.

It used to be that if people had reasonably responsible jobs they got
reasonably-priced medical insurance. Prices for medical services
skyrocketed to take advantage of the additional money available. With
the changing job market there has been no corresponding change in the
medical system -- and there definitely needs to be.

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. Office
staff, however, is another story. Most of the 'girls' should be fired.
Admins and insurance people are yet another story.

> As for my country (where the most expensive thing in regard to a multi-hour
> operation is probably the cab-fare to- and from the hospital) ? We have
> offloaded all kinds of "care" to professionals. The changes in "social
> wellfare" (money handed out by the gouverment so you don't die while looking
> for another job) have caused people not needing to depend on one another,
> causing people to alienate. IOW, we /lost/ the (need for) caring of
> others.

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.

>> 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.

> Ofcourse it is. After all, *they* made that coffee that hot. :-)
>
>> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.
>
> Than you would need to lobotimize everyone, because greed is universal. It
> just is played out differently under the different countries laws. Just ask
> yourself why you have a locks on the outside doors of your home and/or car.

Not everyone is a thief or grifter, just enough of them that we need to
be careful. We didn't lock our front door until hubby thought that
someone had stolen his wallet, which he kept easily visible from the
front door. Years later we found the wallet where it had fallen out of
his pocket between the seats of the car, but the habit of locking the
door lasted.

--
Cheers, Bev
"I love this country...
...and the freedoms we used to have..."
--George Carlin

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?

>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.

>It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own stuff within reach.

As above, obviously false.

The Real Bev wrote:
> If I use ONLY IMAP, all my email is in the cloud.
Not necessarily true. IMAP protocol supports both online and offline -
i.e. store locally and on the server

> It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own
> stuff within reach.
See above. Configure properly

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

nospam,

>> Once lightning-strike
>> and we have a problem...
>
> how often does that happen?

.... Argues the person who thinks that 800 on billions is a problem ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2022 12:15 AM, Chris wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2022 12:31 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
>>>> Bev,
>>>>
>>>>> "Let's just remove all the warning labels and see what happens..."
>>>>
>>>> Going from a shitload of warnings to none ? That's like like going "cold
>>>> turkey" on a drugs habbit - the immediate effects will be ... less than
>>>> pleasurable.
>>>
>>> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
>>> bathtub..."
>>
>> And callous as hell. Civilisation has developed as society improved in
>> caring after others.
>>
>>>>> One of my favorites is our very own -- "This product is known to the State
>>>>> of California to cause cancer..." or the "This location is known..."
>>>>> Pompous as well as useless.
>>>>
>>>> I'm from Europe, and the plethora of warnings that /have/ to be put on about
>>>> everything is a source of a number of jokes.
>>>
>>> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.
>
> "...<invisible warning blurb..."
>
>> Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
>> threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.
>
> You will only file a lawsuit if it's potentially profitable to both
> yourself and the lawyer you'll have to hire.

That's the problem. A suit shouldn't be about profiteering. It's for
claiming damages.

> You don't have to hire a
> lawyer for small claims court (in fact they're forbidden), but if the
> defendant loses he can appeal and THEN lawyers get involved.

It's the same here.

> If you're
> interested in the mechanics of class-action suits, read Crichton's King
> of Torts. Fun even if you're not interested.
>
> If you DO sue in small claims court, request a real judge and not a
> 'magistrate' or equivalent. They want to be asked back so they won't
> make waves -- or do any actual thinking, if thinking is required.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> We do have stronger statutory consumer protections here as well.
>>
>> It's funny how US culture puts personal responsibility above everything
>> else, but as soon as there's an opportunity to sue someone for something
>> that you did personal responsibility goes out the window.
>
> Perhaps you are describing two completely different sets of people.

Perhaps.

>> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.
>
> Which set?

The spurious suits.

> Still, I slipped on the slick marble steps of the local post office
> during one of our rare rainstorms. I picked myself up, went inside, did
> whatever I was going to do and departed. Afterward I thought I was
> really stupid for not suing -- they should have known how slippery those
> steps were.
>
> Several years ago a stupid woman hit me with her car while I was
> crossing the street on my bicycle. She just didn't see me. She knocked
> me off the bike and knocked the seat off the bike too, which was the
> bigger nuisance. I yelled at her while she cringeingly apologized. I
> could have filed with her insurance, but it didn't seem worth the
> trouble for a quart of peroxide and some big band-aids.

Yes you could have. Over here she could have been arrested for careless
driving.

> I should have at least made her drive me home, though.

Yep.

R.Wieser <address@not.available> wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Civilisation has developed as society improved in
>> caring after others.
>
> I disagree. America sets a /very/ bad example in the way where a simple
> accident needing hospital time can throw the person into poverty.

Agree. That's because the US values individualism over society. Just look
at how toxic the words "socialism" or "left" are.

> As for my country (where the most expensive thing in regard to a multi-hour
> operation is probably the cab-fare to- and from the hospital) ? We have
> offloaded all kinds of "care" to professionals. The changes in "social
> wellfare" (money handed out by the gouverment so you don't die while looking
> for another job) have caused people not needing to depend on one another,
> causing people to alienate. IOW, we /lost/ the (need for) caring of
> others.
>
>> 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.
>
> Ofcourse it is. After all, *they* made that coffee that hot. :-)

That's what a hot coffee is. Hot. If you'd scalded yourself with a cold
coffee that'd be different.

>> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.
>
> Than you would need to lobotimize everyone, because greed is universal. It
> just is played out differently under the different countries laws.

There is a middle ground.

> Just ask
> yourself why you have a locks on the outside doors of your home and/or car.

To be able to have insurance ;)

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 25 May 2022 at 4:36:06 PM, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:
>
>> Here in my nick of the (European) woods the Americans are well-known for
>> their sue-happyness.
>
> Your statements reek of a racist's level of knowledge and of a racist's
> narrow untoward extremely biased narrow minded attitude.
>
> I'm an American and I've never sued anyone, nor have I ever been sued.

Americans aren't a race. So stop playing the victim. The culture of suing
prevalent across the country is very well known and documented. Your
anecdote doesn't change that.

Bev,

> "When a New Zealander emigrates to Australia, the average IQ of both
> countries increases."

I know that joke, but normally it contains some reference to a group/area
regarded as particulary dumb ... Either New Zealanders or Australians must
have some magical capacity. :-)

> The radio on my Corolla has a red light that means OFF. What kind of
> idiot designs a system that teaches us to ignore red lights?

I can top that : I've got a DVR which shows a red light when in standby
mode, but /also/ when activily recording something. Only after having been
activated ("switched on") it changes to green. IOW, I have had to learn
from it that a red light doesn't mean squat. :-(

>> Possibly. Time will tell. Heck, maybe the movie "idiocracy" is an
>> actual depiction of the future.
>
> You mean that wasn't a documentary?

Well... I might have misrembered it ... Than again, I also have problems
with what 1984 was, or Fahrenheit 451 for that matter.

> SOMETHING is causing the dumbing down. That's probably just a minor
> contribution.

Likely cause: by removing all kind of "dangers" from a persons environment
he doesn't need to think about "is this a good idea?" anymore.

Another possible cause : being able to blame others for their own stupidity
and hugely benefit from it.

> Instead of putting 'softening' sheets in the dryer or fabric softener in
> the rinse water, there was aerosol spray that you just sprayed inside the
> dryer.

Thanks for the explanation. I can't say I've even just seen an
advertisement for that.

> Clearly not. I thought it was faux latin, not an actual quote.

As far as I know, yes, its absolutily bogus. It was created for what you
used it for, seeing how auto-reflow would work in different circumstances
(like around images etc.)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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 ...

> 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 ...

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.

> 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.

Having access to a website where numerous cases involving entitled people
(which are effectivly try to obtain stuff because they are either convinced
they have a right to it or think that they can get away with it) are
described doesn't help. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Chris,

>> Ofcourse it is. After all, *they* made that coffee that hot. :-)
>
> That's what a hot coffee is. Hot.

So is water from a "hot water" tap in my country. Normally not enough to
(quickly) cause burns, but quite uncomfortable nonetheless. Assuming that
temperature to also come from other, similar taps would probably catch me
out when encountering a https://www.quooker.co.uk/ tap, whih can spew out
water at-or-nearly boiling point ...

IOW, I do think that coffee can definitily be served too hot. On the other
hand, anyone who gets something hot from a new place should have the common
sense to first check, and that anyone being a frequent buyer should have
know enough to be careful ...

> If you'd scalded yourself with a cold coffee that'd be different.

Hrmmm ... Ice coffee is a thing. And I have seen people getting their
tongues frozen to bridges and lightpoles... Some trendy cafe or restaurant
could even offer ice coffee made with dry ice - just don't drink it while
its still "boiling".

>> Than you would need to lobotimize everyone, because greed is universal.
>> It just is played out differently under the different countries laws.
>
> There is a middle ground.

We already have it : break the law and we wil throw your ass in jail.
Doesn't really seem to stop any kind of theft, petty, institutionalized or
anything in between.

>> Just ask yourself why you have a locks on the outside doors of your
>> home and/or car.
>
> To be able to have insurance ;)

:-p

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

> Ice coffee is a thing. And I have seen people getting their tongues frozen
> to bridges and lightpoles... Some trendy cafe or restaurant could even
> offer ice coffee made with dry ice - just don't drink it while its still
> "boiling".

Maybe give liquid nitrogen coffee a miss too?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_nitrogen_cocktail#Lancaster_incident>

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.

Nope. Your email client can also have a full, local copy.

> Once lightning-strike
> and we have a problem... It's ALL cloud, I just want to keep my own
> stuff within reach.

One lightning strike where? At your house? Then you'd lose all
connectivity. Or in the cloud? Not possible.

> So 'traditional' email servers don't use the net?
> Cool...

So you have problems with the net as well? I mean why are even on usenet,
then?

>>>>> They're probably the people who don't know what options or preferences
>>>>> are and wouldn't know what to do with them if they did.
>>>>
>>>> Or they understand the consequences of an immovable object meeting an
>>>> unstoppable force.
>>>
>>> This is very close to a religious question -- what you believe affects
>>> what you do/don't do/fear.
>>
>> Email isn't belief system...
>
> No, but how you use it is. I trust gmail to send messages between
> people, storing them for as long as the users want them to, but perhaps
> much longer unbeknownst to them. If you believe that nothing can go
> worng then you trust the cloud. If not, not.

Nothing's absolute. It's about trusting google more than myself. Plus
convenience.

Andy,

> Maybe give liquid nitrogen coffee a miss too?

:-) That was actually an NCIS murder-plot device : liquid nitrogen in a
thermos can - instead of the normal beverage.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Wed, 25 May 2022 17:53:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <t6kl25$uhf$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.

McDonalds put a warning on their cups that said something like "Hot
Coffee." Is it still there? I don't know.

That always seemed like a nonsensical, meaningless warning to me.
Maybe it's hot when the cup is first filled, but the warning doesn't
go away as the coffee cools. So, regardless of what the sign says,
maybe it's hot and maybe it isn't.

It's similar to the signs one sometimes sees in the rear windows of
cars, saying "Baby on Board." Nobody takes down the sign when the baby
is not in the car, so that sign is also nonsensical and meaningless.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2022 01:43 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>>> Civilisation has developed as society improved in
>>> caring after others.
>>
>> I disagree. America sets a /very/ bad example in the way where a simple
>> accident needing hospital time can throw the person into poverty.
>
> It used to be that if people had reasonably responsible jobs they got
> reasonably-priced medical insurance. Prices for medical services
> skyrocketed to take advantage of the additional money available. With
> the changing job market there has been no corresponding change in the
> medical system -- and there definitely needs to be.
>
> Not sure HOW this should work, though.

There are plenty of examples across the world which are better than the US
and are far cheaper.

> 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. Office
> staff, however, is another story. Most of the 'girls' should be fired.

Salaries aren't the problem it's the fact that the customer in a hospital
is the insurance company, not the patient. Thus costs are calculated
accordingly. Costs charged are not a reflection of real costs, but what the
insurance company is willing to pay. Then those costs are used to calculate
your insurance premium.

It's all artificial.

> Admins and insurance people are yet another story.

Get rid of insurance and they disappear.

>
>> As for my country (where the most expensive thing in regard to a multi-hour
>> operation is probably the cab-fare to- and from the hospital) ? We have
>> offloaded all kinds of "care" to professionals. The changes in "social
>> wellfare" (money handed out by the gouverment so you don't die while looking
>> for another job) have caused people not needing to depend on one another,
>> causing people to alienate. IOW, we /lost/ the (need for) caring of
>> others.
>
> 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.

>>> 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.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
> R.Wieser wrote:
>
>> Ice coffee is a thing. And I have seen people getting their tongues frozen
>> to bridges and lightpoles... Some trendy cafe or restaurant could even
>> offer ice coffee made with dry ice - just don't drink it while its still
>> "boiling".
>
> Maybe give liquid nitrogen coffee a miss too?
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_nitrogen_cocktail#Lancaster_incident>

I was going to mention that one too. Must have been horrible. Poor woman.

Ken Blake wrote:

>
> It's similar to the signs one sometimes sees in the rear windows of
> cars, saying "Baby on Board." Nobody takes down the sign when the baby
> is not in the car, so that sign is also nonsensical and meaningless.
>

:) When one is, it worthy of being present.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On May 22, 2022, R.Wieser wrote
(in article<news:t6fe00$1862$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> I don't think you understand what OAuth is supposed to be doing.

It doesn't look like you understand what OAuth is supposed to be doing.

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?

>>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...

>>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'.

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

On 05/26/2022 12:29 AM, Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2022 12:15 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05/24/2022 12:31 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
>>>>> Bev,
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Let's just remove all the warning labels and see what happens..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Going from a shitload of warnings to none ? That's like like going "cold
>>>>> turkey" on a drugs habbit - the immediate effects will be ... less than
>>>>> pleasurable.
>>>>
>>>> But therapeutic for civilization as a whole. "Do not use toaster in
>>>> bathtub..."
>>>
>>> And callous as hell. Civilisation has developed as society improved in
>>> caring after others.

Civilization is NOT improved by expending resources on maintaining those
who are inimical to its continuation.

>>>>>> One of my favorites is our very own -- "This product is known to the State
>>>>>> of California to cause cancer..." or the "This location is known..."
>>>>>> Pompous as well as useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm from Europe, and the plethora of warnings that /have/ to be put on about
>>>>> everything is a source of a number of jokes.
>>>>
>>>> We'd make them too but they've become invisible.
>>
>> "...<invisible warning blurb..."
>>
>>> Really?! Most Americans I know are proud of the fact that they can
>>> threaten anyone they like with a lawsuit. That's alien to us over here.
>>
>> You will only file a lawsuit if it's potentially profitable to both
>> yourself and the lawyer you'll have to hire.
>
> That's the problem. A suit shouldn't be about profiteering. It's for
> claiming damages.

Given that lawyers are involved, they HAVE to get paid in some way. The
plaintiff must be made whole AND the lawyer who enabled that should be
paid. And then the activity that the defendant enagaged in might be so
egregiously evil that punitive damages far greater than the actual
damages suffered by one person are warranted.

We may just have a greater intolerance for injustice than Europeans do.
We see wrongs that need to be corrected rather than The Way It's
Always Been.

>> You don't have to hire a
>> lawyer for small claims court (in fact they're forbidden), but if the
>> defendant loses he can appeal and THEN lawyers get involved.
>
> It's the same here.
>
>> If you're
>> interested in the mechanics of class-action suits, read Crichton's King
>> of Torts. Fun even if you're not interested.
>>
>> If you DO sue in small claims court, request a real judge and not a
>> 'magistrate' or equivalent. They want to be asked back so they won't
>> make waves -- or do any actual thinking, if thinking is required.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> We do have stronger statutory consumer protections here as well.
>>>
>>> It's funny how US culture puts personal responsibility above everything
>>> else, but as soon as there's an opportunity to sue someone for something
>>> that you did personal responsibility goes out the window.
>>
>> Perhaps you are describing two completely different sets of people.
>
> Perhaps.
>
>>> If you want to get rid of labels you need to get rid of that first.
>>
>> Which set?
>
> The spurious suits.
>
>> Still, I slipped on the slick marble steps of the local post office
>> during one of our rare rainstorms. I picked myself up, went inside, did
>> whatever I was going to do and departed. Afterward I thought I was
>> really stupid for not suing -- they should have known how slippery those
>> steps were.
>>
>> Several years ago a stupid woman hit me with her car while I was
>> crossing the street on my bicycle. She just didn't see me. She knocked
>> me off the bike and knocked the seat off the bike too, which was the
>> bigger nuisance. I yelled at her while she cringeingly apologized. I
>> could have filed with her insurance, but it didn't seem worth the
>> trouble for a quart of peroxide and some big band-aids.
>
> Yes you could have. Over here she could have been arrested for careless
> driving.

I probably could have done that -- call 911, make a stink. Too much
time and trouble for too little reward. She may have been frightened
into paying more attention to her driving, especially when making left
turns in signaled intersections, and that was good enough.

OTOH, my grandson was put in the hospital under similar circumstances.
That was definitely worth the time and trouble. Note: if you have no
insurance, ask in advance what the unnecessary ride to the hospital in
the ambulance is going to cost you. $2K here, and their bill didn't
come in until the driver's liability limit had been hit.

>> I should have at least made her drive me home, though.
>
> Yep.

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

On 05/26/2022 12:41 AM, Chris wrote:
> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 25 May 2022 at 4:36:06 PM, "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> wrote:
>>
>>> Here in my nick of the (European) woods the Americans are well-known for
>>> their sue-happyness.
>>
>> Your statements reek of a racist's level of knowledge and of a racist's
>> narrow untoward extremely biased narrow minded attitude.
>>
>> I'm an American and I've never sued anyone, nor have I ever been sued.
>
> Americans aren't a race. So stop playing the victim. The culture of suing
> prevalent across the country is very well known and documented. Your
> anecdote doesn't change that.

I won against a neighbor whose falling tree yanked the electrical wire
out of our house -- he claimed it was an act of God. I asked the judge
if God told him not to trim his overgrown tree.

I lost when the person I was suing lied in court -- and lied to my
insurance company, who didn't even notify me that she had filed a claim.
Yeah, I changed insurance companies at the next opportunity.

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

On 05/26/2022 01:16 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Bev,
>
>> "When a New Zealander emigrates to Australia, the average IQ of both
>> countries increases."
>
> I know that joke, but normally it contains some reference to a group/area
> regarded as particulary dumb ... Either New Zealanders or Australians must
> have some magical capacity. :-)

The Kiwi was dumb enough to want to leave, so NZ got smarter. The Kiwi
was STILL smarter than the Ozzies, so Oz got smarter too.

>> The radio on my Corolla has a red light that means OFF. What kind of
>> idiot designs a system that teaches us to ignore red lights?
>
> I can top that : I've got a DVR which shows a red light when in standby
> mode, but /also/ when activily recording something. Only after having been
> activated ("switched on") it changes to green. IOW, I have had to learn
> from it that a red light doesn't mean squat. :-(

Dangerous. But do not attribute to malevolence...

>>> Possibly. Time will tell. Heck, maybe the movie "idiocracy" is an
>>> actual depiction of the future.
>>
>> You mean that wasn't a documentary?
>
> Well... I might have misrembered it ... Than again, I also have problems
> with what 1984 was, or Fahrenheit 451 for that matter.

Warnings only heeded by those for whom they're unnecessary.

>> SOMETHING is causing the dumbing down. That's probably just a minor
>> contribution.
>
> Likely cause: by removing all kind of "dangers" from a persons environment
> he doesn't need to think about "is this a good idea?" anymore.
>
> Another possible cause : being able to blame others for their own stupidity
> and hugely benefit from it.

Both are plenty good enough.

>> Instead of putting 'softening' sheets in the dryer or fabric softener in
>> the rinse water, there was aerosol spray that you just sprayed inside the
>> dryer.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I can't say I've even just seen an
> advertisement for that.

LOOONG time ago.

>> Clearly not. I thought it was faux latin, not an actual quote.
>
> As far as I know, yes, its absolutily bogus. It was created for what you
> used it for, seeing how auto-reflow would work in different circumstances
> (like around images etc.)
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

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