On 11/08/2021 23.59, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 2:31 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:51:43 +1200, Your Name
>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-11 20:25:46 +0000, Bob Campbell said:
>>>> NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>
>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>>
>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>
>
> Not everyone has a phone of any kind. In the USA, *most* people have
> some kind of phone, but there's a big difference between "everybody" and
> "most people.
>
> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
> and other places), it may not even be "most people."

I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper and
faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 00.11, nospam wrote:
> In article <d4tduhx61n.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> | The emergency alert system (EAS) test will be sent to TVs and radios. The
>>>> | wireless emergency alert (WEA) test will go to cellular consumers
>>>> |
>>>> | Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>
>>>> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
>>>> online is in trouble.
>>>
>>> it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
>>
>> Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
>
> depends on the type of notification.

email.

Both imap and pop3 are "poll" things. They are not "pushed" from outside.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 00.11, nospam wrote:

>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>
> the emergency test was in the usa, which means cellphone use elsewhere
> is not relevant.

Was it? The OP did not say! :-P

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <6huduhxl6r.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
> > and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>
> I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
> people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper and
> faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.

it's true for the usa.

<https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/2072.jpeg>

In article <h0vduhxdcr.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>> | The emergency alert system (EAS) test will be sent to TVs and radios.
> >>>> | The
> >>>> | wireless emergency alert (WEA) test will go to cellular consumers
> >>>> |
> >>>> | Why not also test on PCs?
> >>>>
> >>>> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
> >>>> online is in trouble.
> >>>
> >>> it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
> >>
> >> Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
> >
> > depends on the type of notification.
>
> email.
>
> Both imap and pop3 are "poll" things. They are not "pushed" from outside.

email is not the only form of notification.

some apps open a network connection to a server and listen for a
notification or other messages, with periodic pings to make sure the
session stays up and reestablish it if it drops.

i've written a few such apps and used various others that do that. you
probably have too.

In article <n2vduhxdcr.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> >> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
> >> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
> >
> > the emergency test was in the usa, which means cellphone use elsewhere
> > is not relevant.
>
> Was it? The OP did not say! :-P

it was.

the original post had this link:
<https://www.npr.org/2021/08/11/1026679111/fema-fcc-nationwide-emergency-
alert-test-eas-wea>
"The test is intended to ensure public safety officials have the
methods and systems that will deliver urgent alerts and warnings
to the public in times of an emergency or disaster," according to a
press release from the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
which is working in coordination with the Federal Communications
Commission.

which also contained this link:
<https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210611/fema-and-fcc-plan-nationwid
e-emergency-alert-test-aug-11-test-messages-will>
FEMA and FCC Plan Nationwide Emergency Alert Test for Aug. 11 Test
Messages Will be Sent to TVs and Radios Along with Select Cell Phones
That Have Opted-in to Receive Test Messages

fema and fcc are in the usa.

On 8/11/2021 5:39 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> That's interesting, because over here the entire POTS network is being
> replaced with a VoIP network. For example, I have fibre to the home,
> then a device called ONT that converts fibre to ethernet (RJ) and phone
> copper pair (RJ). Without battery backup; I had to add my own UPS.
>
> My guess is that the same is happening over your way, at a different pace.
Even with battery back up of every router, booster, server in it the
system must have electricity, once the power is cut from any one then
the system fails.

My router/modem has batter backup, however after a couple of hours of no
electricity, the battery dies.

In hurricane situations electricity can go down for days. I believe the
maximum time down for the house we currently live in is about 24 hours.

Have lived in Indianapolis In and currently Raleigh NC extended area.

We have fiber to our addition but still have copper to our house.

On 12/08/2021 00.40, nospam wrote:
> In article <6huduhxl6r.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>>
>> I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
>> people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper and
>> faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.
>
> it's true for the usa.
>
> <https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/2072.jpeg>

Over here, you can not contract internet (fibre or cable) without a
landline. So the numbers of landlines stay artificially up.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 00.40, nospam wrote:
> In article <n2vduhxdcr.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>>>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>>>
>>> the emergency test was in the usa, which means cellphone use elsewhere
>>> is not relevant.
>>
>> Was it? The OP did not say! :-P
>
> it was.
>
> the original post had this link:

Yeah, the link would say, but not the post. I bet many did not read the
link. I didn't.

> <https://www.npr.org/2021/08/11/1026679111/fema-fcc-nationwide-emergency-
> alert-test-eas-wea>
> "The test is intended to ensure public safety officials have the
> methods and systems that will deliver urgent alerts and warnings
> to the public in times of an emergency or disaster," according to a
> press release from the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
> which is working in coordination with the Federal Communications
> Commission.
>
> which also contained this link:
> <https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210611/fema-and-fcc-plan-nationwid
> e-emergency-alert-test-aug-11-test-messages-will>
> FEMA and FCC Plan Nationwide Emergency Alert Test for Aug. 11 Test
> Messages Will be Sent to TVs and Radios Along with Select Cell Phones
> That Have Opted-in to Receive Test Messages
>
> fema and fcc are in the usa.
>

yet I don't see the word "usa" :-p

FCC here is "Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas", a huge builder
contractor. And FEMA is "Fire Equipment Manufacturers' Association".

:-P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMA_(disambiguation)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 00.40, nospam wrote:
> In article <h0vduhxdcr.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> | The emergency alert system (EAS) test will be sent to TVs and radios.
>>>>>> | The
>>>>>> | wireless emergency alert (WEA) test will go to cellular consumers
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
>>>>>> online is in trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
>>>>
>>>> Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
>>>
>>> depends on the type of notification.
>>
>> email.
>>
>> Both imap and pop3 are "poll" things. They are not "pushed" from outside.
>
> email is not the only form of notification.

But it is the one mentioned above. :-)

>
> some apps open a network connection to a server and listen for a
> notification or other messages, with periodic pings to make sure the
> session stays up and reestablish it if it drops.
>
> i've written a few such apps and used various others that do that. you
> probably have too.
>

Yeah, that's a possibility, although they start with a poll or
registration. Not a broadcast.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <uc2euhxt1t.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>> | The emergency alert system (EAS) test will be sent to TVs and radios.
> >>>>>> | The
> >>>>>> | wireless emergency alert (WEA) test will go to cellular consumers
> >>>>>> |
> >>>>>> | Why not also test on PCs?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
> >>>>>> online is in trouble.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
> >>>
> >>> depends on the type of notification.
> >>
> >> email.
> >>
> >> Both imap and pop3 are "poll" things. They are not "pushed" from outside.
> >
> > email is not the only form of notification.
>
> But it is the one mentioned above. :-)

yep. it was an example of a notification from the outside that isn't a
command that can pwn your computer.

you're correct that email is not the best example, although imap does
supports push, but i don't know the specifics.

> > some apps open a network connection to a server and listen for a
> > notification or other messages, with periodic pings to make sure the
> > session stays up and reestablish it if it drops.
> >
> > i've written a few such apps and used various others that do that. you
> > probably have too.
> >
>
> Yeah, that's a possibility, although they start with a poll or
> registration. Not a broadcast.

it's more than a possibility. btdt.

On 2021-08-11, Bob Campbell <nunya@none.none> wrote:
> Because everyone has a phone. Very few people have - or sit in front of
> all day - a Windows PC.

I know people who do no have cell phones. I just have a simple flip phone.
It does not automatically show text messages, just puts a small icon on
the display. I ignore it since I don't do text messaging and am not
interested in reading any such messages whether from government dirtbags
or anyone else. I have a transistor radio for emergency information.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 12/08/2021 01.35, nospam wrote:
> In article <uc2euhxt1t.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> | The emergency alert system (EAS) test will be sent to TVs and radios.
>>>>>>>> | The
>>>>>>>> | wireless emergency alert (WEA) test will go to cellular consumers
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>> | Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
>>>>>>>> online is in trouble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
>>>>>
>>>>> depends on the type of notification.
>>>>
>>>> email.
>>>>
>>>> Both imap and pop3 are "poll" things. They are not "pushed" from outside.
>>>
>>> email is not the only form of notification.
>>
>> But it is the one mentioned above. :-)
>
> yep. it was an example of a notification from the outside that isn't a
> command that can pwn your computer.
>
> you're correct that email is not the best example, although imap does
> supports push, but i don't know the specifics.

I think that the client starts the connection and keeps it up; then the
server can push things using that same connection.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2021-08-11 21:31:16 +0000, micky said:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:51:43 +1200, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-08-11 20:25:46 +0000, Bob Campbell said:
>>> NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why not also test on PCs?
>>>
>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>
>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>
> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.

Not everyone has a phone either.

On 2021-08-11 23:09:28 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:
> On 12/08/2021 00.40, nospam wrote:
>> In article <6huduhxl6r.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>>>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>>>
>>> I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
>>> people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper and
>>> faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.
>>
>> it's true for the usa.
>>
>> <https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/2072.jpeg>
>
> Over here, you can not contract internet (fibre or cable) without a
> landline. So the numbers of landlines stay artificially up.

Here in New Zealand broadband connection plans (ADSL, VDSL, fibre, or
4G/5G) are without a landline, but a landline option, including
transferring an exiting copper line phone number, can be added for an
extra NZ$10 (approx. US$7) per month. The phonelines company Chorus is
planning to phase out copper lines at some point, but has no timeframe
for doing so yet.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Ken Blake wrote
>> micky wrote
>>> Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
>>>> Bob Campbell wrote
>>>>> NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>>>
>>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>>
>>
>> Not everyone has a phone of any kind. In the USA, *most* people have
>> some kind of phone, but there's a big difference between "everybody" and
>> "most people.
>>
>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."

> I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
> people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper
> and faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.

Not just in africa either, plenty in Australia don’t bother
with a landline anymore because a cellphone service is
much cheaper and much more useful given that it works
when you aren't at home too.

In article <sf1p2i$3mj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> >>>> Why not also test on PCs?
> >>>
> >>> Because everyone has a phone.
> >>
> >> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
> >
> > He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>
> Not everyone has a phone either.

that number is almost zero.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:11:18 +0200, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/08/2021 23.59, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 2:31 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:51:43 +1200, Your Name
>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-08-11 20:25:46 +0000, Bob Campbell said:
>>>>> NewsKrawler <newskrawl@krawl.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>>>
>>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>>
>>
>> Not everyone has a phone of any kind. In the USA, *most* people have

How does that change what I said?

As to some people not having a phone of any sort, of course not. Some
people have no phone, radio, television, or telegraph. If there is an
emergency, they won't be notified with one of those.

>> some kind of phone, but there's a big difference between "everybody" and
>> "most people.
>>
>> And in other parts of the world (parts of Africa, parts of Asia, etc,
>> and other places), it may not even be "most people."
>
>I heard that in Africa, or in parts of it, it may happen that more
>people have a mobile phone than a landline; it is simply cheaper and
>faster to deploy a wireless network than copper.

I can see that.

On 12/08/2021 02.50, nospam wrote:
> In article <sf1p2i$3mj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Why not also test on PCs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>>>
>>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>>
>> Not everyone has a phone either.
>
> that number is almost zero.
>

Google "how many people in the usa don't have a phone?"

How many people in the US have a cell phone?
Mobile phone ownership over time
The vast majority of Americans – 97% – now own a cellphone of some kind.
The share of Americans that own a smartphone is now 85%, up from just
35% in Pew Research Center's first survey of smartphone ownership
conducted in 2011.7 abr 2021

<https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/>

So, 3% don't have a cellphone. That's not close to zero :-p

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <he8euhx5gv.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
> >>>
> >>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
> >>
> >> Not everyone has a phone either.
> >
> > that number is almost zero.
> >
>
> Google "how many people in the usa don't have a phone?"
>
> How many people in the US have a cell phone?
> Mobile phone ownership over time
> The vast majority of Americans ­ 97% ­ now own a cellphone of some kind.
> The share of Americans that own a smartphone is now 85%, up from just
> 35% in Pew Research Center's first survey of smartphone ownership
> conducted in 2011.7 abr 2021
>
> <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/>
>
> So, 3% don't have a cellphone. That's not close to zero :-p

he's referring to a normal phone, not a cellphone:

> >>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
> >>
> >> Not everyone has a phone either.

find that number.

but even for 97% cellphones, that's nearly everyone.

On 12/08/2021 03.07, nospam wrote:
> In article <he8euhx5gv.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Because everyone has a phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. Not everyone has a cellphone.
>>>>>
>>>>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone has a phone either.
>>>
>>> that number is almost zero.
>>>
>>
>> Google "how many people in the usa don't have a phone?"
>>
>> How many people in the US have a cell phone?
>> Mobile phone ownership over time
>> The vast majority of Americans ­ 97% ­ now own a cellphone of some kind.
>> The share of Americans that own a smartphone is now 85%, up from just
>> 35% in Pew Research Center's first survey of smartphone ownership
>> conducted in 2011.7 abr 2021
>>
>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/>
>>
>> So, 3% don't have a cellphone. That's not close to zero :-p
>
> he's referring to a normal phone, not a cellphone:

Every homeless, then. At least.

>
>>>>> He said "a phone", not a cell phone.
>>>>
>>>> Not everyone has a phone either.
>
> find that number.
>
> but even for 97% cellphones, that's nearly everyone.
>

Google says to "how many homes in the usa don't have a phone?" 3.2%

How many US households have no landline?
6.5 percent
Today, that figure has plummeted drastically to about 40 percent. In
another recent study, only 6.5 percent of U.S. households had a landline
only, while 3.2 percent somehow have remained untethered to any type of
phone. And over half of U.S. households utilized only wireless
service.20 mar 2020

<https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/study-only-40-percent-us-households-have-landline-135212>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote

| > I don't use a cellphone. If I did, the local city wouldn't
| > know the number. They call listed numbers.
| >
| > So what the Fed are doing must be simply that those
| > are the venues where they can force companies to
| > broadcast a message, and where it's possible to do so.
| | Emergency alerts are broadcast to ALL cellphones by the providers,
| regardless of whether or not the number is "listed".
|

Yes. I meant that the local city calls listed landlines.
They have no way to know cellphone numbers owned
by people in the city. I just get a bot voicemail on my
landline.

The Feds, are working the other way around -- forcing
cellphone service providers to just broadcast to anyone.
But they don't call landlines. Too expensive, I suppose.
Long story short, I never heard about the apocalypse
today. :)

| In some ways they're a stupid idea (even ignoring the fact that many
| people do not have cellphones). For example, someone driving along and
| their cellphone suddenly starts screeching at them could cause a
| traffic accident, or the sudden shock could induce a heart attack.
|

Good point. And in many states it's now illegal to use
handheld devices while driving. I think of it as just one
more reason I'm glad not to use a cellphone. I don't
want various gov't authorities deciding I need to be
informed of an amber alert or some such. And I'm sure
that's just the foot in the door. Next it will be voting
reminders, recycling reminders, reminders not to drink
and drive, reminders that fireworks are illegal... If Trump
were still president he'd probably be sending out reminders
of how much better he's making your life.

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

| >> | Why not also test on PCs?
| >>
| >> How? Any computer that accepts commands from
| >> online is in trouble.
| >
| > it's not sending commands, it's a notification, much like email.
| | Which is not really "sent", it is polled. At client PCs.
|

You're trying to have a reasonable discussion with
nospam. Be warned that he'll argue nonsensically until
you stop answering him. He doesn't care that his posts
make no sense... Then again, maybe to be safe I
should make sure I don't have the Windows National
Announcement Reception service running on my DCOM
port. :)

I suppose most people probably don't understand that
computers don't normally receive messages. It doesn't
help that it's presented that way. For instance, Firefox
has an option to enable "push". But of course it's not
push. It's polling, as you say.

But that makes me wonder... Some people who don't
worry about security have services like remote desktop
running. Perhaps the gov't could hijack that to show
you a desktop message window. Something like that
was actually the first hack of XP. The Messenger service
was running by default, because all NT systems are designed
to be corporate workstations. So wiseguys were taking
advantage of it to pop up messages. Nospam may be
running something like that on his Mac, so Timmy Cook
can send him something like a Tip of the Day. So he may
actually think it's perfectly normal to be bombarded with
remotely sourced messages.
(Today's tip? "Buy more Macs, kids!")

On 12/08/2021 03.17, Mayayana wrote:
> "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote
>
> | > I don't use a cellphone. If I did, the local city wouldn't
> | > know the number. They call listed numbers.
> | >
> | > So what the Fed are doing must be simply that those
> | > are the venues where they can force companies to
> | > broadcast a message, and where it's possible to do so.
> |
> | Emergency alerts are broadcast to ALL cellphones by the providers,
> | regardless of whether or not the number is "listed".
> |
>
> Yes. I meant that the local city calls listed landlines.
> They have no way to know cellphone numbers owned
> by people in the city. I just get a bot voicemail on my
> landline.
>
> The Feds, are working the other way around -- forcing
> cellphone service providers to just broadcast to anyone.
> But they don't call landlines. Too expensive, I suppose.
> Long story short, I never heard about the apocalypse
> today. :)

Landlines were not designed for that, but if there was the interest (the
funding) they could manage to do it. But as POTS is dead technology
nobody is going to do it.

For instance, placing a message in every voicemail box of an exchange
would be quite easy. It is akin to copying the same file to thousands of
accounts. It is just a computer. A big one with specialized hardware.

On VoIP it would be harder, because the city doesn't have a listing of
all clients, which can be in a myriad of different SIP servers. IF this
can be handled, though, the capability would be similar, placing a
voicemail file in every account listed.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <sf1tmn$q9a$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>
> I suppose most people probably don't understand that
> computers don't normally receive messages. It doesn't
> help that it's presented that way.

actually, they do normally receive all sorts of messages over the
internet.

the obvious example is instant messaging (not sms). there are many
others.

> For instance, Firefox
> has an option to enable "push". But of course it's not
> push. It's polling, as you say.

actually, it *is* push, not polling.

<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API>
The Push API gives web applications the ability to receive messages
pushed to them from a server, whether or not the web app is in the
foreground, or even currently loaded, on a user agent. This lets
developers deliver asynchronous notifications and updates to users
that opt in, resulting in better engagement with timely new content.

> But that makes me wonder... Some people who don't
> worry about security have services like remote desktop
> running. Perhaps the gov't could hijack that to show
> you a desktop message window.

only if they crack the password, which isn't going to be the same for
everyone. not a realistic goal, not to mention it's illegal.