In article <sf1su4$dg5$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> 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.

that info is easily obtained from a variety of sources. whether they
bother is another story.

> 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. :)

calling every landline would take far too long. it's not worth the
trouble.

a text message to all cellphones gets just about everyone.

those without a cellphone will find out from friends or family, or they
will regret not buying a cellphone for the warning to find shelter.

> | 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.

his example is absurd and receiving a text does not mean using the
phone.

> 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.

you can turn them off.

> 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.

in 2018, a presidential alert was sent out as a test, which unlike
today's test, *can't* be turned off.

knuttle wrote:

> Cellphone, being an over the air system of communication, have been
> added to the alert system test. We have received Amber alerts and
> weather system alerts on our cellphones, when they are turned on. But
> again, once the power to the cell tower is lost, cell phone
> communication ends.

Cell towers now have backup power.

Mine does.

All it takes is "an embarrassing incident", to cause
obvious network failures to get fixed. That's how the
best engineering gets done... by trial and error.

Do not expect every asset these companies own, to have
generators. Only the "core equipment" providing lifeline
service, must be equipped that way. Nobody cares
if you can't see a 4K Youtube video, in the dark :-)
But dial tone could be useful, if you're having a
heart attack.

Paul

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
> NewsKrawler wrote

>> At 2:20 p.m. ET on Wednesday, the federal government will test two
>> emergency

> Our Federal Government won't do anything like this.

Then you get to drown when they get it wrong about the effect of a lot of
rain etc.

knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Boris wrote
>> News <News@Group.Name> wrote
>>> NewsKrawler wrote

>>>> At 2:20 p.m. ET on Wednesday, the federal government will test two
>>>> emergency alert systems on televisions, radios and cellphones across
>>>> the country.
>>>> https://www.npr.org/2021/08/11/1026679111/fema-fcc-nationwide-emergenc
>>>> y-alert-test-eas-wea
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> PC's are not included in the test as they are a secondary means of
> communication. In a real emergency the only means of communication will
> be those systems that broadcast their signals through the air.
>
> The radios and television have been having these alerts since the 1950.
> Broadcast system are required to participate in the test alerts to
> maintain their licenses. (I have seen several alerts of this type on
> different stations in the past few weeks.)
>
> We have gone through several hurricanes, the minute the power goes off
> computer systems go down. Some component in the system (individual
> computers, servers, etc) loose power and the whole system goes off line.
>
> TV and radio keep broadcasting as only their transmitters need power to
> stay on the air. In some case the reporters have moved from their
> normal studio to the tower to remain on the air.
>
> The most reliable are radios. Radio are recommended to be part off your
> home emergency kits, as they generally take less power than a TV and
> radio signals carry further.

But I'm not going to listen to the radio continuously
unless its a very extreme emergency situation.
> Cellphone, being an over the air system of communication, have been
> added to the alert system test. We have received Amber alerts and
> weather system alerts on our cellphones, when they are turned on.
> But again, once the power to the cell tower is lost, cell phone
> communication ends.

But its by far the best way to alert people before the power goes out.
> One thing that is becoming common is the Voice of internet telephones
> that many people have to day. Since they are dependent on an internet
> connection they can not be counted on in a real emergency.

On 2021-08-12 01:17:59 +0000, Mayayana said:

> "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 provider still knows the number, it's simply not listed for
*public* to see anywhere.

Besides, our landline number is unlisted, but we still get the
occacional random-dialled phone calls (usually robocalls) from idiots
trying sell something.

> 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. :)

Cellphone can easily broadcast an emergency signal to all cellphones on
their network at the same time and the cellphone plays it without being
actually "answered" by the user.

Landline providers could do something similar, but due to the way
copper works, it would need robocalls and users actually answering the
phone, as well as taking too long to be worthwhile.

> | 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.

It screams a loud alert noise, which would be enough to startle some
people, so it's not just the using / answering the cellphone that is
the only problem with it.

> 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.

On 11/08/2021 23:40, 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.

It wasn't. The OP only referenced the 'federal government'. They may
have meant Germany.

It's annoying that people don't realise this isn't a US-specific ng.
There are a lot of "foreign" regulars here.

On 8/11/2021 9:17 PM, 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. :)
>
>
> | 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.
>
>
The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
constantly being monitored. Some people worry about privacy and accept
the cell phone location monitoring.

Early in the panic we were receiving report of on the number of people
violating the shut down order that was based on cell phone traffic.

On 12/08/2021 03.56, nospam wrote:
> 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.

The client computer has to initiate and maintain the connection. The
server can not initiate the sending of messages, which is why it can be
considered "poll".

>
>> 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.

Not exactly; the client must initiate and stay connected to somewhere to
receive those.

>
>> 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.

The bad guys do not care about legalities.
The password... well, they do hack computers more computers than before,
so...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 13.48, knuttle wrote:
> On 8/11/2021 9:17 PM, 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. :)
>>
>>
>> | 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.
>>
>>
> The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
> constantly being monitored.   Some people worry about privacy and accept
> the cell phone location monitoring.

Hum.

The service provider does not monitor locations in real time. They can
find out in retrospect, analysing the raw data logs, where some person
was, which is different. And for this a court order is required.

They can, which is different, know in real time how many people are
connected to each tower or antenna. Not the same thing as people in an
area, that requires intense calculations, has a cost in hardware and
software resources.

On the other hand, google/apple can obtain the location of each client,
by asking the smartphone itself.

>
> Early in the panic we were receiving report of on the number of people
> violating the shut down order that was based on cell phone traffic.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

|
| It wasn't. The OP only referenced the 'federal government'. They may
| have meant Germany.
|

Or Bali, maybe. But they meant the US.

| It's annoying that people don't realise this isn't a US-specific ng.
| There are a lot of "foreign" regulars here.

I'm afraid that's the cost of not living in "Rome".
Romans don't need to think about what's happening
in outlying areas. It's not arrogance. It's just the way
of things. Just as you didn't feel offended on behalf of
Balians, Nigerians, or Mongolians, but only on behalf of
a modern, European power to be reckoned with on the
world stage.

The Internet itself is mainly a US/English invention.
And this group is English language. If you go to
German usenet groups then presumably they'd be
assuming German references. So, yes, this is mainly a
US newsgroup, with a number of Brits who add "colour",
and a few multilingual people from other countries. We
even accept Mac users such as yourself, even though
they might just as well be from Bali. :)

This is an interesting issue, I think -- minorities demanding
equal representation. That's the basis of the current craze in
"critical race theory" in the US. The proposal is that American
society is inherently racist. But it's not. It simply has a culture.
Racism is an element in all people because we all have likes
and dislikes. We all define us and them in various ways. CRT
demands that we eliminate all culture and distinctions. Ironically,
the people making the demands never stop distinguishing
themselves and their subcultures. So be careful what you wish
for. If you demand equal acknowledgement of German culture,
what's to stop a Mongolian from stopping by and demanding
the same? Or a Balian? Will we have to discuss broadcast
standards in Chile or offer "Spanish Language Friday" to Carlos?

So, welcome to America. Be sure to see our Eiffel Tower and
Leaning Tower of Pisa. I think they're both in Las Vegas. :)

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

| > 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 provider still knows the number, it's simply not listed for
| *public* to see anywhere.
| This is getting unnecessarily complicated. The local city
calls landlines. It has nothing to do with providers. They
call listed numbers. It's not like providers being forced to
contact every customer. It's just a computer
dialing phone numbers.

| Besides, our landline number is unlisted, but we still get the
| occacional random-dialled phone calls (usually robocalls) from idiots
| trying sell something.
| Yes, but that will be because they're calling random
numbers or got your number from some list. It's not
easy to keep your number off such lists. My number is
listed but I don't get many spam calls. Why? Because
I never share my number unless it's necessary.

In other words, there are two different issues here.
One is gov't enlisting providers to message every cellphone
customer. The other situation, with landlines, is just
a case of computers making thousands of phone calls.

| Cellphone can easily broadcast an emergency signal to all cellphones on
| their network at the same time and the cellphone plays it without being
| actually "answered" by the user.
| | Landline providers could do something similar, but due to the way
| copper works, it would need robocalls and users actually answering the
| phone, as well as taking too long to be worthwhile.
| Yes, and I'm grateful for that. I expect it won't be long
before your cellphone is sreaming at you about the sale at
your local car dealership.

| > Good point. And in many states it's now illegal to use
| > handheld devices while driving.
| | It screams a loud alert noise, which would be enough to startle some
| people, so it's not just the using / answering the cellphone that is
| the only problem with it.
| Really? I didn't know that. That's very intrusive.

I keep a cellphone in my glove
compartment but only turn it on to make calls. I know I get
robocalls and messages, despite never giving out the number,
but I ignore them. (For some reason most of the robocalls
seem to feature women speaking Chinese very fast.)

This whole cellphone craze is worrying me. It's quickly
becoming a kind of trackable passport, required for all
public transactions. Normalizing intrusive messages makes
it even more obnoxious.

"knuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote

| The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
| constantly being monitored. Some people worry about privacy and accept
| the cell phone location monitoring.
|

That's why I keep mine turned off. But I also just don't
find that I have much use for it. It's a portable phone booth.
I don't use apps. I like maps. I certainly don't want people to
be able to interrupt me, wherever I am -- like getting a
text message or call while I'm out taking a walk.

| Early in the panic we were receiving report of on the number of people
| violating the shut down order that was based on cell phone traffic.

Interesting. I didn't know about that. Probably most
people don't even realize they're tracked.

On 2021-08-12 8:05 a.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "knuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> | The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
> | constantly being monitored. Some people worry about privacy and accept
> | the cell phone location monitoring.
> |
>
> That's why I keep mine turned off. But I also just don't
> find that I have much use for it. It's a portable phone booth.
> I don't use apps. I like maps. I certainly don't want people to
> be able to interrupt me, wherever I am -- like getting a
> text message or call while I'm out taking a walk.
>
> | Early in the panic we were receiving report of on the number of people
> | violating the shut down order that was based on cell phone traffic.
>
> Interesting. I didn't know about that. Probably most
> people don't even realize they're tracked.
>
>

I have an Alcatel Flip phone Go 3 and it is a semi smart phone wit lots
of features which I never use, It is always Off except when I have to
call a Cab when I am out somewhere,, It never receives calls because
only my son and I know the phone number. I am in charge of it, not it
running my life like I see so many who are slaves to their phones.

Rene

In article <sf2d5u$38l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > | 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.
>
> It screams a loud alert noise, which would be enough to startle some
> people, so it's not just the using / answering the cellphone that is
> the only problem with it.

phones don't 'scream a lout alert noise' and might even be set to
vibrate.

you've previously said you don't own a cellphone, so stop pretending to
know what they do.

and if noises cause you to crash, how do you manage to drive at all?

another vehicle could honk their horn, creating a 'loud alert noise'.

kids often start fighting with each other. even adult passengers might
get into an argument and start yelling, also loud noises.

In article <sf366b$bc6$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | It screams a loud alert noise, which would be enough to startle some
> | people, so it's not just the using / answering the cellphone that is
> | the only problem with it.
> |
> Really? I didn't know that. That's very intrusive.

it's wrong. he has said many times that he doesn't own a cellphone.

the phone will beep whatever ringtone you choose, at whatever volume
you set it to, or vibrate.

the phone can also be put into do not disturb mode.

smartphones can tell if someone is driving and automatically do that,
although that often falses for passengers and most people turn it off.

In article <rrgfuhxqo2.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
>
> The client computer has to initiate and maintain the connection. The
> server can not initiate the sending of messages, which is why it can be
> considered "poll".

the client initiates a connection, which is maintained, then the server
can push whatever it wants.

i've written apps that do this. you obviously have not.

you've almost certainly used apps that do this.

> >> 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.
>
> Not exactly; the client must initiate and stay connected to somewhere to
> receive those.

yes exactly.

there's a big difference between polling and what's described above,
which is why it's called the push api and not the polling api.

> >> 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.
>
> The bad guys do not care about legalities.

he is describing where the government is doing it:
> >> running. Perhaps the gov't could hijack that to show

he's also saying that in a discussion of the government sending a text
message to everyone's cellphone as a test.

they're not going to hack people's computers to send messages, which
they would need to test to see if it even works.

it's a ridiculous idea.

> The password... well, they do hack computers more computers than before,
> so...

it's not a realistic threat to expect anyone, let alone a government,
to hack every single person's computer to send them some sort of
message.

they might get a few lucky guesses, but that's about it, which will be
a teaching moment for the stupids who have easily guessable passwords.

In article <sf31e5$9eg$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
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.
>
> It wasn't. The OP only referenced the 'federal government'. They may
> have meant Germany.
>
> It's annoying that people don't realise this isn't a US-specific ng.
> There are a lot of "foreign" regulars here.

true, but most regulars are in the usa and its government is often
referred to as that, plus the post itself had a link which went into
detail about fema and the fcc doing the test. there was no ambiguity.

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

| > <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.
| | Not exactly; the client must initiate and stay connected to somewhere to
| receive those.

Yes. It's a very creepy and rather misleading system.
It relies on "service workers" which are javascript files. I haven't
looked into it deeply, but as near as I can tell it's basically just
an undisplayed browser page load that loads when the browser
opens and stays loaded for as long as the browser is open,
using javascript to connect with the web app server.

So if you allow this then you accumulate a collection of
these scripted webpages that are all loaded invisibly when
FF starts up.

For example, you decide you'd like to allow Google Docs to
push you. They then send you javascript code and a URL.
When FF loads it then loads that URL, effectively maintaining
an open connection. That allows Google to pop up a message
like, "Hey, Carlos, wouldn't you rather be writing a Google
Doc right now?" The messaging would be handled by the browser.

So it's actually not, in any respect, a push function. But it
appears that way to the enduser. And since so
many people now just leave their browser open, that can even
appear to be a direct call that's received by a receptive service.

Push can be disabled in prefs. I also like to set
network.http.keep-alive to false, to generally cut the
connection with any webpage once the page files have
been downloaded.

I seem to remember that Mozilla was also going to set
up a subscription message service, that would allow for
polling a Mozilla URL where messages from commercial
entities could be stored, waiting for pick-up:
"Today only! Sheets and towels on sale today at Amazon!"

But I'm not clear about that. I haven't paid much
attention, except to make sure I have it all disabled. But
I have noticed there are two separate prefs:

services.push.enabled
dom.webnotifications.enabled

knuttle wrote:

> The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
> constantly being monitored. Some people worry about privacy and
> accept the cell phone location monitoring.

What about if the husband does the monitoring? If the wife's out
shopping and she's late coming home I just bring up Find My iPhone to
find out where she is. But I don't have to use it all that often because
my credit card company sends me a text every time she buys something
giving the store name and amount. Monitoring can be handy but also
sometimes a bit scary ($$) ...

In message <20210811193959@news.eternal-september.org> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

And I know people who don't have TVs. So what? The vast majority of
people have both, and nearly everyone has one or the other.

> I just have a simple flip phone.

So you also have a 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.

And do you think there are millions of Luddites like you out there?

BTW, there was no test on Wednesday at all.

--
Happy Jack wasn't tall, but he was a man

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
> |
> | It wasn't. The OP only referenced the 'federal government'. They may
> | have meant Germany.
> |
>
> Or Bali, maybe. But they meant the US.
>
> | It's annoying that people don't realise this isn't a US-specific ng.
> | There are a lot of "foreign" regulars here.
>
> I'm afraid that's the cost of not living in "Rome".
> Romans don't need to think about what's happening
> in outlying areas. It's not arrogance. It's just the way
> of things. Just as you didn't feel offended on behalf of
> Balians, Nigerians, or Mongolians, but only on behalf of
> a modern, European power to be reckoned with on the
> world stage.

Who's offended? Not me.

> The Internet itself is mainly a US/English invention.
> And this group is English language. If you go to
> German usenet groups then presumably they'd be
> assuming German references.

Yes because it is a german group as you state. This isn't a US group. Just
because it's in english you make the false assumption that defaults to
American. English is a universal language.

> So, yes, this is mainly a
> US newsgroup,

Mainly, that doesn't mean it is US-specific which is what the OP was.

Yes lots of US threads are of use or interest to others here but this topic
was of no use to anyone outside of the US.

> with a number of Brits who add "colour",
> and a few multilingual people from other countries. We
> even accept Mac users such as yourself, even though
> they might just as well be from Bali. :)
>
> This is an interesting issue, I think -- minorities demanding
> equal representation.

The bigger issue is American superiority complex. You should try rereading
what you wrote from an external perspective.

> That's the basis of the current craze in
> "critical race theory" in the US. The proposal is that American
> society is inherently racist. But it's not. It simply has a culture.
> Racism is an element in all people because we all have likes
> and dislikes. We all define us and them in various ways. CRT
> demands that we eliminate all culture and distinctions. Ironically,
> the people making the demands never stop distinguishing
> themselves and their subcultures. So be careful what you wish
> for. If you demand equal acknowledgement of German culture,
> what's to stop a Mongolian from stopping by and demanding
> the same? Or a Balian? Will we have to discuss broadcast
> standards in Chile or offer "Spanish Language Friday" to Carlos?

Would there be anything wrong with that? As long as it's on-topic you might
actually learn something.

> So, welcome to America. Be sure to see our Eiffel Tower and
> Leaning Tower of Pisa. I think they're both in Las Vegas. :)

I'll pass. I don't do cheap copies.

Am 12.08.21 um 07:46 schrieb %%:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote
>> NewsKrawler wrote
>
>>> At 2:20 p.m. ET on Wednesday, the federal government will test two
>>> emergency
>
>> Our Federal Government won't do anything like this.
>
> Then you get to drown when they get it wrong about the effect of a lot of
> rain etc.

Since WW II the alert and emergency systems in Switzerland are very
sophisticated. It is the same as with the availability of nuclear
hardened shelters.

Israel is the benchmark.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 13.48, knuttle wrote:
>> On 8/11/2021 9:17 PM, 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. :)
>>>
>>>
>>> | 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.
>>>
>>>
>> The biggest problem with a cell phone is that your location is
>> constantly being monitored.   Some people worry about privacy and accept
>> the cell phone location monitoring.
>
> Hum.
>
> The service provider does not monitor locations in real time. They can
> find out in retrospect, analysing the raw data logs, where some person
> was, which is different. And for this a court order is required.

Correct. It's also not very accurate as the cell data was not design for
triangulating a phone's position. That's why it can only be done
retrospectively and requires specialist knowledge.

> They can, which is different, know in real time how many people are
> connected to each tower or antenna. Not the same thing as people in an
> area, that requires intense calculations, has a cost in hardware and
> software resources.
>
> On the other hand, google/apple can obtain the location of each client,
> by asking the smartphone itself.
>
>>
>> Early in the panic we were receiving report of on the number of people
>> violating the shut down order that was based on cell phone traffic.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:50:35 -0400,
"Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>|
>| It wasn't. The OP only referenced the 'federal government'. They may
>| have meant Germany.
>|
>
> Or Bali, maybe. But they meant the US.
>
>| It's annoying that people don't realise this isn't a US-specific ng.

What! I want my money back.

>| There are a lot of "foreign" regulars here.
>
> I'm afraid that's the cost of not living in "Rome".
>Romans don't need to think about what's happening
>in outlying areas. It's not arrogance. It's just the way
>of things. Just as you didn't feel offended on behalf of
>Balians, Nigerians, or Mongolians, but only on behalf of
>a modern, European power to be reckoned with on the
>world stage.
>
> The Internet itself is mainly a US/English invention.
>And this group is English language. If you go to
>German usenet groups then presumably they'd be
>assuming German references. So, yes, this is mainly a
>US newsgroup, with a number of Brits who add "colour",
>and a few multilingual people from other countries. We
>even accept Mac users such as yourself, even though

This thread is cross-posted to android and iphone ngs.

>they might just as well be from Bali. :)

Am 11.08.21 um 23:59 schrieb Ken Blake:
> On 8/11/2021 2:31 PM, micky wrote:
>> 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."

You would be surprised.
The whole discussion is bizarre. Phones and all means that depend on the
public electricity network are not suitable for the discussed purpose.
Telephone networks are not suitable for such peak loads as to inform the
whole population.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum