Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> It is also possible to get a "location independent number" that you
>> can take wherever you like.
>
> That one could also be had previously, but were more expensive. I never
> saw one, though. It was an special number, like 901, 902, 903... but I
> don't remember the exact one. I thought 905 but google says no.

We use the 08x (x != 0) numbers for that.
They quickly gained a bad reputation because mobile providers that
had call "bundles" for fixed number calls on their subscription all
considered them to be "outside bundle" and thus much more expensive
to call than localized numbers. So people quickly knew to avoid such
numbers and made effort to find a localized number e.g. for companies
that advertised them. Later it was mandated to process them just like
localized numbers, but the damage had been done.

> When any bank internal application receives an IBAN to do any operation,
> it would have to check first it the number had moved, and if so,
> transfer to another specialized application to handle that situation,
> and if not, continue.
>
> That means reprogramming maybe thousand of existing internal
> applications, or routines, or however you want to call them. And on
> every bank.

Of course all existing internal applications had to be changed anyway
at the time the IBAN was introduced. Before that, we had 9/10-digit
numeric account numbers and then we suddenly had those 18-character
alphanumeric ones. Sure that was a big change and a good opportunity
to introduce a portable number, but the banks did not WANT to have
that.
And unlike the telephone companies (who also did not want it of course)
they were not forced by the authority to have it anyway.

The number could have been shorter as well, as all existing 9/10 digit
banknumbers plus the Postbank numbers (an existing incompatible system)
could have fitted in a 15 character IBAN with lots of room to spare,
and no bank-identifying text in it.

On 14/09/2021 12.19, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> We already entered the phase where posession of large amounts of
>>> (and large denominations of) cash is considered suspicious and likely
>>> to point to criminal activity. During the entire time the Euro
>>> has been in circulatoon, over 15 years now, I have never had a
>>> note of more than 50 euro in my posession,
>>
>> No?
>
> Really! Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and
> so I never had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to
> get them.

I think I have seen, occasionally, 100€ notes at some ATM, but for high
denominations you have to go to the desk. And for 500€ notes you had to
ask the day before.

>
>>> and the past 3 years
>>> or so never more than 20 euro. Because amounts larger than 50
>>> euro are never paid in cash.
>>
>> I had a few 500€ notes once. I took photos :-D
>>
>> I had 50€ notes pretty often.
>
> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.

Here not specifically drugs, but any kind of money laundry. I think
there was some stat that said that Spain had the largest usage of them
in the EU. Google fails to find me the stat.

My father wanted to move one account to another bank, and did not want
the source bank to find out the destination bank. So he asked a
withdrawal in paper notes, and the bigger the best, because it is less
size, thus better to move on the street. :-D

Of course the tax body would find out the move, so no issue. We just
wanted the source bank to stay in the dark.

> When I still paid in cash at the supermarket, I usually had some
> 50 euro notes. But I stopped doing that, and now I get only some
> 20 euro notes (and 10 when available, not at my usual ATM unfortunately)
> for use for small amounts.

Right, same as me.

I needed notes because my cleaning lady wanted cash, so I had to have
the exact amount ready. With Covid regulations she could no longer come,
so no more need for regular cash for me.

> And even that becomes less and less used, as paying small amounts
> using the debit card has become possible everywhere.
> (in the days when there as a transaction cost, there often was a
> minimum amount on debit card payments, but that is gone)

Convenience stores or bazaars (here typically owned by Chinese people)
frowned on card usage, but this time they adapted to cards, had to.

>
>> Ah? In Spain the post office does both letters and parcels.
>
> We have no more post offices! All have been closed years ago.
> When we still had them, they were busy places with an ever expanding
> number of services.

Wow. Gone! :-(

No postal service then?

>>> Maybe in the US? Addressed junk mail is on the way down here,
>>> and unaddressed mail can be rejected using a standard sticker
>>> on your mailbox, which most people have.
>>
>> That sticker would be ignored here.
>
> That is not a good idea because people can file a complaint when
> that happens.

LOL, not here. No such regulation.

> Unaddressed mail is usually distributed by a separate
> company that gets leaflets from local stores and other advertisements
> and makes them into bundles that are put in the mailboxes.
> The sticker has 2 fields, one for "local newspapers" (that have some
> local news, announcements from the municipality, and of course ads)
> and another for pure advertisement material. I only allow the local
> newspapers but reject the advertisements. When I get an advertisement
> bundle I could call the company distributing it and complain.

We have no idea who the distributor is.

> Unfortunately what they are starting to do now is combine the different
> advertisement flyers in a single "magazine", maybe put a single editorial
> article in it, and distribute it as "local newspaper". Bummer.
>
>>> The Telegram and Telex services also ceased to be.
>>>
>>
>> I think we nominally have telegram, but is not actually telegram. I
>> would have to check.
>

Confirmed:

<https://www.correos.es/es/es/particulares/enviar/envios-nacionales/burofax-cartas/telegrama>

Physically I don't know how they are. Certainly not sent via Morse code
or dedicated copper wire, more likely they use internet and some
dedicated application at the office. But they must have staff to deliver
them the same day to destination. Huh, I heard they would try to phone
the destination party, then deliver the paper normally as with letters.
Dunno.

Maybe they have to keep the service because the law states that some
things have to be delivered by telegram - for example, a worker deciding
to drop a job has to inform the employer by telegram or burofax.

> Yes we have some service resembling telegram but it is not like
> what it was before, a service of the PTT state company. It is more
> like those "electronic birthday card" services (Hallmark etc) that also
> allow you to request a physical card to be sent to the destination.
> I think it is also possible to send a telex to a country where that
> still works.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/09/2021 12.31, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> It is also possible to get a "location independent number" that you
>>> can take wherever you like.
>>
>> That one could also be had previously, but were more expensive. I never
>> saw one, though. It was an special number, like 901, 902, 903... but I
>> don't remember the exact one. I thought 905 but google says no.
>
> We use the 08x (x != 0) numbers for that.
> They quickly gained a bad reputation because mobile providers that
> had call "bundles" for fixed number calls on their subscription all
> considered them to be "outside bundle" and thus much more expensive
> to call than localized numbers. So people quickly knew to avoid such
> numbers and made effort to find a localized number e.g. for companies
> that advertised them. Later it was mandated to process them just like
> localized numbers, but the damage had been done.
>
>> When any bank internal application receives an IBAN to do any operation,
>> it would have to check first it the number had moved, and if so,
>> transfer to another specialized application to handle that situation,
>> and if not, continue.
>>
>> That means reprogramming maybe thousand of existing internal
>> applications, or routines, or however you want to call them. And on
>> every bank.
>
> Of course all existing internal applications had to be changed anyway
> at the time the IBAN was introduced. Before that, we had 9/10-digit
> numeric account numbers and then we suddenly had those 18-character
> alphanumeric ones. Sure that was a big change and a good opportunity
> to introduce a portable number, but the banks did not WANT to have
> that.

Certainly, that was the moment.

> And unlike the telephone companies (who also did not want it of course)
> they were not forced by the authority to have it anyway.

Yep.

For telephone companies (I was working at one at the time) implementing
this mandate was very complex. Amazing that they found a method that
would work even with half analog exchanges. I don't think it would work
with fully analogical exchanges, we still had a few (say 1998).

So, difficult, expensive, complex... but done all the same because it
was the law. :-)

Regulations have a place :-)

> The number could have been shorter as well, as all existing 9/10 digit
> banknumbers plus the Postbank numbers (an existing incompatible system)
> could have fitted in a 15 character IBAN with lots of room to spare,
> and no bank-identifying text in it.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> We have no more post offices! All have been closed years ago.
>> When we still had them, they were busy places with an ever expanding
>> number of services.
>
> Wow. Gone! :-(
>
> No postal service then?

No dedicated offices for it. There are stores who offer some postal
services like selling stamps, taking packages. They are complaining
all the time because they get little money for it compared to the
work they spend on it, so they could be closing as well.

>>>> Maybe in the US? Addressed junk mail is on the way down here,
>>>> and unaddressed mail can be rejected using a standard sticker
>>>> on your mailbox, which most people have.
>>>
>>> That sticker would be ignored here.
>>
>> That is not a good idea because people can file a complaint when
>> that happens.
>
> LOL, not here. No such regulation.

It is a long-existing system. Recently some municipalities even tried
to reverse the system (to get unaddressed mail you have to have a
special sticker requesting it, when no sticker the default would be
no unaddressed mail) but I think it was put on hold.

On 14/09/2021 13.34, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> We have no more post offices! All have been closed years ago.
>>> When we still had them, they were busy places with an ever expanding
>>> number of services.
>>
>> Wow. Gone! :-(
>>
>> No postal service then?
>
> No dedicated offices for it. There are stores who offer some postal
> services like selling stamps, taking packages. They are complaining
> all the time because they get little money for it compared to the
> work they spend on it, so they could be closing as well.

:-(

Neoliberalism. :-(

>
>>>>> Maybe in the US? Addressed junk mail is on the way down here,
>>>>> and unaddressed mail can be rejected using a standard sticker
>>>>> on your mailbox, which most people have.
>>>>
>>>> That sticker would be ignored here.
>>>
>>> That is not a good idea because people can file a complaint when
>>> that happens.
>>
>> LOL, not here. No such regulation.
>
> It is a long-existing system. Recently some municipalities even tried
> to reverse the system (to get unaddressed mail you have to have a
> special sticker requesting it, when no sticker the default would be
> no unaddressed mail) but I think it was put on hold.

Curious.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > it just became much more than a pastime in texas, where people can make
| > $10,000 by reporting their neighbors...
| >
| | Why? I suppose it means reporting that turns out to be on something big,
| like the next secret lab of Walter White?
|

He's making a wisecrack. Texas has long been known
for bravado and anti-American sentiment. They're often
threatening to start their own country, where they can pretend
to live on the set of a Clint Eastwood movie. The current
governor has established his base of support by playing
into that shamelessly. (They recently, also, passed a law
negating the relevance of gun licenses. You no longer need
a license to swagger into the local saloon with your six-shooters
on each hip, just like Clint.)

The latest move is a law that does
not make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and
does not criminalize abortion itself, so police and
criminal prosecution would not be involved. What the law does
do is to claim that any citizen (read evangelical anti-abortion
groups or any nut with money to burn) can sue *anyone*
who helps a woman get an abortion, in a civil suit. That could
include insurance companies, doctors, friends,
husbands, taxi drivers, etc. Those people can be sued for
up to $10K.

The law is unprecedented in that it not only deputizes
bounty hunters, but they're bounty hunters for a non-crime!
And actually, bounty hunter is not accurate. That means
someone who works to capture a criminal in exchange for
a reward. In this case there's no reward. There's no crime.
There's no criminal. There's just a promise that you can
extort your neighbor, legally, for doing something you might not
like. Or maybe you support abortion. Who cares?! You don't need
to show harm in order to sue!

It's a deliberate, cynical attempt to institute a kind of
back door fascism. (It should be noted that the wokists are
acting in similar manner, trying to force their own extremist
world view -- claiming that other people simply do not have
a right to disagree with them. So it's left-wing mania vs
right-wing mania, with everyone trying to assert what they
think American society should look like.)

If the law is upheld
in any respect that could be a grave threat to what's left of
civility in the US. Liberals might sue conservatives for legally
carrying guns, hunting, or owning tasteless, showy yachts.
Conservatives might sue liberals for driving electric cars,
eating quinoa, or donating to environmental causes. The
Texas "law" establishes a precedent
that you don't need any personal interest in the matter in order
to sue. If you're willing to gamble the court fees you could win
big. It's basically a new kind of gambling venue.

The US Supreme Court has let the law stand, which has got
both sides even more worked up. It's a worrisome situation.
We've developed a society that seems to almost be based on
animosity. Even the Supreme Court, which was generally respected
not long ago, has broken down along extremist lines. Just
this week, Amy Coney Barrett, the lastest SC member and
a quasi-Christian extremist, was brought out by Mitch McConnell,
the top conservative in the US Senate, to claim that the SC
is above politics.

That, in itself, is pretty much unprecedented:
An extremist judge gives a speech to an extremist audience,
*instigated by an extremist member of a different branch of the
government, which is supposed to be kept separate as part of
the US separation of power into executive, legislative and jusicial.*

It was merely an effort to get their propaganda into the press
and try to legitimize the Texas law by claiming that the US SC
is, by nature, fair, decent and legal.

The irony reaches to the level
of satire: An extremist, activist judge calls the press to an
extremist venue to announce that all extremist judges are neutral.
Her move, by partnering with a senator from the legislative
branch, was arguably unconstitutional and potentially
treasonous. So we have a treasonous ex-president, a treasonous
SC judge, and a treasonous leader of Congress. But who cares?
These days, in the US, there's no treason. There's just partisan
propagandizing.

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| > Now people are overwhelming the Texas system with fake reports, see
| >
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-abortion-law-tiktok-reddit-whistleblower>.
| >
| >
| > "One TikTok user said they had submitted 742 fake reports of the
| > governor, Greg Abbott, getting illegal abortions."
| | BTW, you don't get $10,000 for turning someone in, the person you turn
| in gets fined $10,000.

There's no crime. There's no fine. There's no way to turn someone
in. The law only says that if you want to risk your money you could
get it back, plus $10K, by suing someone. If you can prove
that they helped someone, in some way, to get an abortion,
they pay the court costs and up to $10K to you. If you lose,
you pay the court costs. Nowhere, as far as I know, does it
define a crime.

So it's probably best to think of it
as a Mickey Mouse casino: If you bet you could win big. Or
you might not. Or the law may be thrown out. Or the judge
might throw the case out.... It really has nothing to do with
law or legality at all. I'm thinking it might be safer to stick with
indexed stocks if you want a stable investment. Or maybe
lottery tickets. At least those are not at risk of being voided,
and they don't involve stealing money from someone who hasn't
harmed you in any way.

"72y33" <72y33@gmail.com> wrote

| >> it just became much more than a pastime in texas, where people can make
| >> $10,000 by reporting their neighbors...
| >
| > Why? I suppose it means reporting that turns out to be on something big,
| > like the next secret lab of Walter White?
| | Nope, having an abortion after 6 weeks.
| | And you can sue the uber driver for taking the woman to the abortionist
too.
|

You can't sue the woman who had the abortion.
There's no crime. You can only sue the Uber driver.
But you'll need to show that they knew they were
transporting someone to an abortion appt.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| Actually, no, we are typically shy of calling the police. Depends on the
| age of the person. I know someone that will not, for example, call 112
| to inform of a stray dog trapped between the walls of a highway (being a
| danger to itself and to traffic). I don't know the reason, and it is not
| that she hates dogs, but rather she hates being involved with the police
| (my guess). I asked.
|

That's an interesting issue. If someone robs you, do you
call the police or try to catch them yourself? If your neighbor
has a loud party, do you talk to them or call the police. The
more police, the less we have community.

In the US now we have young people who want to eliminate
police because they view police as only instruments of oppression.
Yet if someone makes them feel uncomfortable, calling the police
is the first thing they do... just before making a video and posting
it online to shame the perpetrator. I guess the real issue there is
not so much the role of police as it is the role of citizenship. In
a country where people are unashamed to call themselves
"consumers", there's less and less sense of duty as a citizen.

On 14/09/2021 09:35, Rob wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2021 00:38, Rob wrote:
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think the reason that bank account numbers can't be moved is that they
>>>> are linked to a physical branch.
>>>
>>> But that used to be the same for telephone numbers, which described
>>> the extension's location in the hierarchy of exchanges.
>>>
>>> However today the numbers are first looked up in a number location
>>> database and that can route the call to any operator of any exchange.
>>
>> Not here for landlines. You can't move your landline outside of its
>> exhange.
>
> Here about 20-25 years ago (I do not remember exactly) the numbering
> plan was changed (an extra digit) and from then it became mandatory
> for numbers to be portable between providers. So when I have an
> existing line at KPN (the incumbent provider) I could ask it to
> be migrated to another competing provider.
> With that in place, it also became easy to migrate numbers between
> exchanges of the same provider. Formally only when the number is
> in the same region, but e.g. when moving within a city and its suburbs
> one can keep the same number.
> With the move to VoIP it has become even easier. I have migrated
> my fixed number to a VoIP account, and when I now would move to another
> area in the country I would not have to tell anyone and can just keep
> that number. Formally when I tell the provider they would still have
> to change it to a new number local to my new address, but I think most
> of the providers no longer bother.
> It is also possible to get a "location independent number" that you
> can take wherever you like.
>
>>> The same could be done for bank numbers, it is only the banks that
>>> do not want it, and the stupid financial authority that allowed that.
>>
>> Is it really such a bother to change bank account numbers? I move my
>> account about once a year and it's not a huge deal.
>
> All direct debit accounts would have to be changed, and the linkage
> between the account number and savings account(s) at other banks.

Here, that's all done for you.

The only things that aren't are subscriptions to online services like
Netflix or stored debit cards on websites.

> Plus, like a phone number or e-mail address, others may have your number
> on file and use it at an unpredictable moment. It is impossible to
> inform everyone.

True. They'll bounce and the person should contact you directly to find
out your new details.

On 14/09/2021 15.15, Mayayana wrote:
> "sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>
> | > Now people are overwhelming the Texas system with fake reports, see
> | >
> <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/texas-abortion-law-tiktok-reddit-whistleblower>.
> | >
> | >
> | > "One TikTok user said they had submitted 742 fake reports of the
> | > governor, Greg Abbott, getting illegal abortions."
> |
> | BTW, you don't get $10,000 for turning someone in, the person you turn
> | in gets fined $10,000.
>
> There's no crime. There's no fine. There's no way to turn someone
> in. The law only says that if you want to risk your money you could
> get it back, plus $10K, by suing someone. If you can prove
> that they helped someone, in some way, to get an abortion,
> they pay the court costs and up to $10K to you. If you lose,
> you pay the court costs. Nowhere, as far as I know, does it
> define a crime.
>
> So it's probably best to think of it
> as a Mickey Mouse casino: If you bet you could win big. Or
> you might not. Or the law may be thrown out. Or the judge
> might throw the case out.... It really has nothing to do with
> law or legality at all. I'm thinking it might be safer to stick with
> indexed stocks if you want a stable investment. Or maybe
> lottery tickets. At least those are not at risk of being voided,
> and they don't involve stealing money from someone who hasn't
> harmed you in any way.

Maybe some enterprising lawyer will find a way to sue the cheat for damages.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/09/2021 11:19, Rob wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> We already entered the phase where posession of large amounts of
>>> (and large denominations of) cash is considered suspicious and likely
>>> to point to criminal activity. During the entire time the Euro
>>> has been in circulatoon, over 15 years now, I have never had a
>>> note of more than 50 euro in my posession,
>>
>> No?
>
> Really! Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and
> so I never had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to
> get them.

I've heard that in some wealthy areas (e.g. Monaco) they only do large
denomiation notes.

>>> and the past 3 years
>>> or so never more than 20 euro. Because amounts larger than 50
>>> euro are never paid in cash.
>>
>> I had a few 500€ notes once. I took photos :-D
>>
>> I had 50€ notes pretty often.
>
> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.
> When I still paid in cash at the supermarket, I usually had some
> 50 euro notes. But I stopped doing that, and now I get only some
> 20 euro notes (and 10 when available, not at my usual ATM unfortunately)
> for use for small amounts.

Whenever I buy euros from an exhange they try to give you the largest
denominations as possible. I always ask for 10s and 20s and maybe the
odd 50.

On 14/09/2021 15.08, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | > it just became much more than a pastime in texas, where people can make
> | > $10,000 by reporting their neighbors...
> | >
> |
> | Why? I suppose it means reporting that turns out to be on something big,
> | like the next secret lab of Walter White?
> |
>
> He's making a wisecrack. Texas has long been known
> for bravado and anti-American sentiment. They're often
> threatening to start their own country, where they can pretend
> to live on the set of a Clint Eastwood movie. The current
> governor has established his base of support by playing
> into that shamelessly. (They recently, also, passed a law
> negating the relevance of gun licenses. You no longer need
> a license to swagger into the local saloon with your six-shooters
> on each hip, just like Clint.)

Bonkers.

> The latest move is a law that does
> not make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and
> does not criminalize abortion itself, so police and
> criminal prosecution would not be involved. What the law does
> do is to claim that any citizen (read evangelical anti-abortion
> groups or any nut with money to burn) can sue *anyone*
> who helps a woman get an abortion, in a civil suit. That could
> include insurance companies, doctors, friends,
> husbands, taxi drivers, etc. Those people can be sued for
> up to $10K.
>
> The law is unprecedented in that it not only deputizes
> bounty hunters, but they're bounty hunters for a non-crime!
> And actually, bounty hunter is not accurate. That means
> someone who works to capture a criminal in exchange for
> a reward. In this case there's no reward. There's no crime.
> There's no criminal. There's just a promise that you can
> extort your neighbor, legally, for doing something you might not
> like. Or maybe you support abortion. Who cares?! You don't need
> to show harm in order to sue!

Really bonkers.

> It's a deliberate, cynical attempt to institute a kind of
> back door fascism. (It should be noted that the wokists are
> acting in similar manner, trying to force their own extremist
> world view -- claiming that other people simply do not have
> a right to disagree with them. So it's left-wing mania vs
> right-wing mania, with everyone trying to assert what they
> think American society should look like.)

More bonkers.

> If the law is upheld
> in any respect that could be a grave threat to what's left of
> civility in the US. Liberals might sue conservatives for legally
> carrying guns, hunting, or owning tasteless, showy yachts.
> Conservatives might sue liberals for driving electric cars,
> eating quinoa, or donating to environmental causes. The
> Texas "law" establishes a precedent
> that you don't need any personal interest in the matter in order
> to sue. If you're willing to gamble the court fees you could win
> big. It's basically a new kind of gambling venue.
>
> The US Supreme Court has let the law stand, which has got
> both sides even more worked up. It's a worrisome situation.
> We've developed a society that seems to almost be based on
> animosity. Even the Supreme Court, which was generally respected
> not long ago, has broken down along extremist lines. Just
> this week, Amy Coney Barrett, the lastest SC member and
> a quasi-Christian extremist, was brought out by Mitch McConnell,
> the top conservative in the US Senate, to claim that the SC
> is above politics.
>
> That, in itself, is pretty much unprecedented:
> An extremist judge gives a speech to an extremist audience,
> *instigated by an extremist member of a different branch of the
> government, which is supposed to be kept separate as part of
> the US separation of power into executive, legislative and jusicial.*
>
> It was merely an effort to get their propaganda into the press
> and try to legitimize the Texas law by claiming that the US SC
> is, by nature, fair, decent and legal.
>
> The irony reaches to the level
> of satire: An extremist, activist judge calls the press to an
> extremist venue to announce that all extremist judges are neutral.
> Her move, by partnering with a senator from the legislative
> branch, was arguably unconstitutional and potentially
> treasonous. So we have a treasonous ex-president, a treasonous
> SC judge, and a treasonous leader of Congress. But who cares?
> These days, in the US, there's no treason. There's just partisan
> propagandizing.

really bonkers!

Wish you all good luck.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/14/2021 3:04 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 14/09/2021 09.07, Your Name wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> We will have to ditch the copper landline - partly because New Zealand
>> is going to drop the services (eventually) and partly because it's
>> expensive having the two services separate. We currently pay about NZ$60
>> per month for the internet and another NZ$60 per month for the copper
>> landline. I'm not keen on combining them (if the internet is down, so is
>> your landline!), but it would mean paying just NZ$10 per month on the
>> internet connection to include VoIP landline, so saving NZ$50 each month
>
> You also lose service if power goes down. Meaning neighbourhood or just
> a fuse at your home.

In the U.S., a "landline" is now usually just the old copper pair that
goes a short distance, maybe 1/4 mile, from your house to a piece of
"street furniture," it doesn't go all the way to the CO (Central Office)
anymore. So if power goes out to the box in your neighborhood, which may
have a battery enough to run the equipment for an hour or so, your
"landline" goes down too.

Pre-DSL there was a big shortage of copper pairs because so many
residences had multiple lines, modem, phone, FAX, etc.. I lived in a
neighborhood where a lot of the homes had granny units (aka in-law
units, aka junior ADUs), and those units would also need copper pairs.
The phone company scrambled to find unused pairs when you ordered
another line. Now I have two different optical fibers on the pole behind
my house, as well as the legacy copper and legacy coax.

On 14/09/2021 15.26, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | Actually, no, we are typically shy of calling the police. Depends on the
> | age of the person. I know someone that will not, for example, call 112
> | to inform of a stray dog trapped between the walls of a highway (being a
> | danger to itself and to traffic). I don't know the reason, and it is not
> | that she hates dogs, but rather she hates being involved with the police
> | (my guess). I asked.
> |
>
> That's an interesting issue. If someone robs you, do you
> call the police or try to catch them yourself? If your neighbor
> has a loud party, do you talk to them or call the police. The
> more police, the less we have community.

it varies... for a robbery, I guess most people would call the police.

I once had a loud party and a neighbour called at my door and
complained. I apologized and assured him we would speak softly. We did.
We were only six, tops, may four.

But the case I described in the top paragraph is strange, has me
wondering for years since it happened. I can not figure it out.

> In the US now we have young people who want to eliminate
> police because they view police as only instruments of oppression.
> Yet if someone makes them feel uncomfortable, calling the police
> is the first thing they do... just before making a video and posting
> it online to shame the perpetrator. I guess the real issue there is
> not so much the role of police as it is the role of citizenship. In
> a country where people are unashamed to call themselves
> "consumers", there's less and less sense of duty as a citizen.
>
>

Strange times...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 14/09/2021 15.59, sms wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 3:04 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 14/09/2021 09.07, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> We will have to ditch the copper landline - partly because New Zealand
>>> is going to drop the services (eventually) and partly because it's
>>> expensive having the two services separate. We currently pay about NZ$60
>>> per month for the internet and another NZ$60 per month for the copper
>>> landline. I'm not keen on combining them (if the internet is down, so is
>>> your landline!), but it would mean paying just NZ$10 per month on the
>>> internet connection to include VoIP landline, so saving NZ$50 each month
>>
>> You also lose service if power goes down. Meaning neighbourhood or just
>> a fuse at your home.
>
> In the U.S., a "landline" is now usually just the old copper pair that
> goes a short distance, maybe 1/4 mile, from your house to a piece of
> "street furniture," it doesn't go all the way to the CO (Central Office)
> anymore. So if power goes out to the box in your neighborhood, which may
> have a battery enough to run the equipment for an hour or so, your
> "landline" goes down too.

Yeah, there are different methods. can be fiber to the block, or fiber
to the house.

I'm using the term "landline" loosely.

>
> Pre-DSL there was a big shortage of copper pairs because so many
> residences had multiple lines, modem, phone, FAX, etc.. I lived in a
> neighborhood where a lot of the homes had granny units (aka in-law
> units, aka junior ADUs), and those units would also need copper pairs.

I have not heard of that her, but perhaps.

> The phone company scrambled to find unused pairs when you ordered
> another line. Now I have two different optical fibers on the pole behind
> my house, as well as the legacy copper and legacy coax.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/14/2021 12:07 AM, Your Name wrote:

> When our house was built they put phone and TV jack points in every
> room, except the bathrooms, and there's a switch-hub panel in the
> garage.

Same here except my panel's outside.

> if the internet is down, so is your landline!

Same here when I had a landline. My mobile was the backup. Now that I'm
mobile only, my internet is the backup. My mobile uses either the WiFi
or the cell tower, whichever it thinks is better. If one goes down the
other should take over.

> The Chorus company owns all the street-level phone lines, both copper
> and fibre, as well as the exchanges and roadside cabinets, and they
> simply "rent" the connections to whichever ISP you choose.

Fantastic system. Unfortunately will likely never happen here...

On 9/14/2021 6:08 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> Texas has long been known for bravado and anti-American sentiment.
> They're often threatening to start their own country,

They just wanna go back to the way it was...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas>

> They recently, also, passed a law negating the relevance of gun
> licenses. You no longer need a license to swagger into the local
> saloon with your six-shooters on each hip, just like Clint.)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas

Been that way in my state since statehood. No license required for
open carry, only concealed carry. Few here do it though. I've seen only
one guy packing in the last month or so. There is also a law that a
business can post a no weapons sign at the store entrance that must be
obeyed.

On 9/14/2021 3:19 AM, Rob wrote:

> Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and so I never
> had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to get them.

My banks ATMs only issue $20 bills US. But I can get $1K total a visit
if needed. Or go inside for more though I've never done that. Several
local banks have an agreement so I can use all of their various ATM's
for free.

> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.

Large bills would be hard to spend here since many stores refuse them so
likely that is the reason for their unpopularity.

> Unaddressed mail is usually distributed by a separate company that
> gets leaflets from local stores and other advertisements and makes
> them into bundles that are put in the mailboxes.

The US post office has a monopoly on junk mail in my mailbox. No one
else is legally allowed to enter. Further no soliciting or hanging ads
on my door is allowed. One of my HOA's good rules. And since I live in a
walled compound with controlled entry the rule works very well.

On 9/14/2021 6:08 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | > it just became much more than a pastime in texas, where people can make
> | > $10,000 by reporting their neighbors...
> | >
> |
> | Why? I suppose it means reporting that turns out to be on something big,
> | like the next secret lab of Walter White?
> |
>
> He's making a wisecrack. Texas has long been known
> for bravado and anti-American sentiment. They're often
> threatening to start their own country, where they can pretend
> to live on the set of a Clint Eastwood movie.

They need to stop just talking about seceding and actually do it. It
would also simplify the American Flag to have only 49 stars in a 7 x 7
pattern.

> The current
> governor has established his base of support by playing
> into that shamelessly. (They recently, also, passed a law
> negating the relevance of gun licenses. You no longer need
> a license to swagger into the local saloon with your six-shooters
> on each hip, just like Clint.)

In Texas it's more difficult to buy Sudafed than a gun.

On 2021-09-13 19:46, Rob wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-09-13 04:12, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Stamps do not even have their monetary value on them anymore, they
>>> are just "stamp for mailing a letter" because the price is increasing
>>> all the time (on the other hand that means you can save some money <---- [1]
>>> by keeping a stock).
>>
>> The price of stamps goes up because of inflation.
>
> Of course, it always did. But now it also goes up because of decreasing
> demand. As I explained before: the stamp price appears to be calculated
> from the desired turnover and the expected number of letters sent.
> That is sort of reasonable, because below a certain number of letters
> sent the total cost of the system does not depend much on the number
> of letters sent.
> <S>
> Before this "stamp for mailing a letter" thing was introduced here,
> we had stamps with a monetary value and a tariff list for each service
> (sending a card, a letter, printed matter, etc).
> When you had bought 50c stamps and the rate for a letter was increased
> to 55c, you had to buy separate 5c stamps to be able to use your
> existing stock of 50c stamps.

You actually think that needed to be explained or that it is unique?

The point is that the contract to send a letter was made in the past w/o
limit to exercising it. In that sense there is no "save some money" as
you claim above [1] because the value of your money was greater in the
past when you made the contract.

It's pretty much a zero sum game except for the raises being far apart
(every few years or so) makes it 'lumpy'.

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On 14/09/2021 17.56, AJL wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 3:19 AM, Rob wrote:
>
>> Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and so I never
>> had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to get them.
>
> My banks ATMs only issue $20 bills US. But I can get $1K total a visit
> if needed. Or go inside for more though I've never done that. Several
> local banks have an agreement so I can use all of their various ATM's
> for free.
>
>> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.
>
> Large bills would be hard to spend here since many stores refuse them so
> likely that is the reason for their unpopularity.

They are very popular to store money in a safety box, or transport money
in an envelope that is not noticed, or transport a hefty sum in a small
suitcase. Were, because they aren't printed anymore.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2021-09-13 19:46, Rob wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-13 04:12, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stamps do not even have their monetary value on them anymore, they
>>>> are just "stamp for mailing a letter" because the price is increasing
>>>> all the time (on the other hand that means you can save some money <---- [1]
>>>> by keeping a stock).
>>>
>>> The price of stamps goes up because of inflation.
>>
>> Of course, it always did. But now it also goes up because of decreasing
>> demand. As I explained before: the stamp price appears to be calculated
>> from the desired turnover and the expected number of letters sent.
>> That is sort of reasonable, because below a certain number of letters
>> sent the total cost of the system does not depend much on the number
>> of letters sent.
>> <S>
>> Before this "stamp for mailing a letter" thing was introduced here,
>> we had stamps with a monetary value and a tariff list for each service
>> (sending a card, a letter, printed matter, etc).
>> When you had bought 50c stamps and the rate for a letter was increased
>> to 55c, you had to buy separate 5c stamps to be able to use your
>> existing stock of 50c stamps.
>
> You actually think that needed to be explained or that it is unique?
>
> The point is that the contract to send a letter was made in the past w/o
> limit to exercising it. In that sense there is no "save some money" as
> you claim above [1] because the value of your money was greater in the
> past when you made the contract.
>
> It's pretty much a zero sum game except for the raises being far apart
> (every few years or so) makes it 'lumpy'.

Apparently you did not understand the point that the rate of postage
is rising much faster than inflation because it not only depends on
the increasing cost of the postal system, but also on the decreasing
use of it. So ever fewer users have to bring in the total cost of
the system, requiring a quickly rising tariff per letter.

This is the tariff for a 0-20g letter over the past two decades:

2002 € 0,39
2003 € 0,39
2004 € 0,39
2005 € 0,39
2006 € 0,39
2007 € 0,44
2008 € 0,44
2009 € 0,44
2010 € 0,44
2011 € 0,46
2012 € 0,50
2013 € 0,54
2013 € 0,60
2014 € 0,64
2015 € 0,69
2016 € 0,73
2017 € 0,78
2018 € 0,83
2019 € 0,87
2020 € 0,91
2021 € 0,96

See what happens in the last decade compared to the one before?

On 9/14/2021 12:05 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 14/09/2021 17.56, AJL wrote:
>> On 9/14/2021 3:19 AM, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and so I never
>>> had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to get them.
>>
>> My banks ATMs only issue $20 bills US. But I can get $1K total a visit
>> if needed. Or go inside for more though I've never done that. Several
>> local banks have an agreement so I can use all of their various ATM's
>> for free.
>>
>>> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.
>>
>> Large bills would be hard to spend here since many stores refuse them so
>> likely that is the reason for their unpopularity.
>
> They are very popular to store money in a safety box, or transport money
> in an envelope that is not noticed, or transport a hefty sum in a small
> suitcase. Were, because they aren't printed anymore.

In the U.S., the largest bill is now $100. In the past there were
$500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 bills (also a $100,000 bill that never
went into circulation).

It would make sense to follow Canada's lead and drop the penny and drop
the $1 bill, and get the $1 coin into wider circulation, but this is
unlikely to happen for political reasons. There was a push by vending
machine companies for wider use of $1 coin because of the hassle of
paper money receptors, but this went nowhere.

On 14/09/2021 22.14, sms wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 12:05 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 14/09/2021 17.56, AJL wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2021 3:19 AM, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>> Our ATMs issue only 50, 20 and sometimes 10 euro notes and so I never
>>>> had 100, 200 or 500 euro notes, I would have no way to get them.
>>>
>>> My banks ATMs only issue $20 bills US. But I can get $1K total a visit
>>> if needed. Or go inside for more though I've never done that. Several
>>> local banks have an agreement so I can use all of their various ATM's
>>> for free.
>>>
>>>> 500 euro notes are considered "drugs money" here.
>>>
>>> Large bills would be hard to spend here since many stores refuse them so
>>> likely that is the reason for their unpopularity.
>>
>> They are very popular to store money in a safety box, or transport money
>> in an envelope that is not noticed, or transport a hefty sum in a small
>> suitcase. Were, because they aren't printed anymore.
>
> In the U.S., the largest bill is now $100. In the past there were
> $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 bills (also a $100,000 bill that never
> went into circulation).

Wow!

How far back was that?

The biggest we had was the 500€ bill. It is legal tender, it circulates,
but it is not printed anymore.

>
> It would make sense to follow Canada's lead and drop the penny and drop
> the $1 bill, and get the $1 coin into wider circulation, but this is
> unlikely to happen for political reasons. There was a push by vending
> machine companies for wider use of $1 coin because of the hassle of
> paper money receptors, but this went nowhere.

Yeah, having 1$ bills is strange. The smaller we have is the 5€ bill.
There was talk of removing the cent, but several countries refused. I
agree with keeping the cent, removing it would cause prices to rise a bit.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.