In article <mhcguhx4db.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
> >
>
> I don't think a presidential alert obeys "do not disturb" or "driving"
> modes. It would be against purpose.

it does not. as i said in another post, that is the only one that can't
be turned off. the other emergency alerts can.

it's also extremely rare.

only one presidential alert has been sent in the usa, which was a test
and it pre-announced as to when.

In article <inlencFcq39U1@mid.individual.net>, Sam Block
<sb67hg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>> It's a rare day that I talk to someone on my cell phone.
> >>
> >>> Except for spammers, it's a rare day that I get any calls on my land
> >>> line (VoIP).
> >>
> >> Unsurprising given what an obnoxious arsehole you are.
> >>
> >> Not all of us are like that.
>
> > I'm not sure what I did to give you that opinion of me,
>
> That line you keep running about all the left should be rounded up and
> exterminated.

that's a different person.

In article <sf401s$b79$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

>
> There are a few "homeless" people are just scammers. They get up at the
> end of a "hard day's work" conning people into giving them money, walk
> around the corner, and drive off in a brand new Mercedes. :-\

is that what you're driving now?

On 2021-08-12 20:22:46 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:

> On 12/08/2021 15.56, nospam wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't think a presidential alert obeys "do not disturb" or "driving"
> modes. It would be against purpose.

The system can be different in different countries and different
phones, but in general for most places actual emergency alerts are not
affected by "Do Not Disturb" and you cannot change the ringtone,
volume, etc. ... it would defeat the entire prupose of the alert
system. The only thing you can do is turn the cellphone off completely.

See <https://www.lifewire.com/turn-off-emergency-amber-alerts-iphone-1999203>

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Sam Block <sb67hg@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >>> It's a rare day that I talk to someone on my cell phone.
>> >>
>> >>> Except for spammers, it's a rare day that I get any calls on my land
>> >>> line (VoIP).
>> >>
>> >> Unsurprising given what an obnoxious arsehole you are.
>> >>
>> >> Not all of us are like that.
>>
>> > I'm not sure what I did to give you that opinion of me,
>>
>> That line you keep running about all the left should be rounded up and
>> exterminated.
>
> that's a different person.

Whoops, sorry, you're right, different first name.

On 12/08/2021 23.02, nospam wrote:
> In article <mhcguhx4db.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think a presidential alert obeys "do not disturb" or "driving"
>> modes. It would be against purpose.
>
> it does not. as i said in another post, that is the only one that can't
> be turned off. the other emergency alerts can.
>
> it's also extremely rare.
>
> only one presidential alert has been sent in the usa, which was a test
> and it pre-announced as to when.
>

Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
surely, the only one.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 12/08/2021 22.59, Rod Speed wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>> Joerg Lorenz wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> For private use landlines are a thing of the past. Millennials
>>> and younger do not have have landlines anymore.
>
>> Over here they do, if they have their own home.
>
> But it less clear how many even bother
> to have a landline phone plugged into it.
>
>> You simply can not have broadband internet (cable or fibre)
>> without a landline, because the providers refuse. There is
>> no technical issue, simply that they refuse.
>
> Most of ours don’t bother to plug a phone into the
> landline anymore, use the cellphones for everything.

I'm at such a house these days. There is a phone connected, but no one
uses it. And it has to be paid for, every month, want it or not.

>
>> And broadband internet they often want to have.
>
> But that doesn’t have to be done with cable or fiber anymore.
>
> Plenty just use their cellphone.

Not if you are a heavy user. Say a gamer, or video on demand every day.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <ovgguhxq6d.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> I don't think a presidential alert obeys "do not disturb" or "driving"
> >> modes. It would be against purpose.
> >
> > it does not. as i said in another post, that is the only one that can't
> > be turned off. the other emergency alerts can.
> >
> > it's also extremely rare.
> >
> > only one presidential alert has been sent in the usa, which was a test
> > and it pre-announced as to when.
> >
>
> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
> surely, the only one.

there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.

<https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>

On 8/12/2021 6:02 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> 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.)

If someone speaks Chinese very fast to me, I wouldn't understand it.
That's OK with me, because I also wouldn't understand it if they spoke
Chinese very slowly, and speaking it fast gets it over with quickly.

--
Ken

"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote

| > I use my cell phone for several things:
| >
| > 1. To read Kindle books.
| >
| > 2. Mostly if I'm not in my home town, to use Google Maps
| >
| > 3. To check the weather
| >
| > 4. To Look something up on Wikipedia
| >
| > 5. To ask Google a question
| >
| > 6. Mostly if I'm not in my home town, to make or confirm restaurant
| > reservations
| >
| > 7. To change the settings on my thermostat (I rarely need to do this)
| >
| > 8. For Uber (I rarely need to do this)
| >
| > 9. To adjust my hearing aids (I rarely need to do this)
| >
| > 10. As a camera (again, rarely, and only if I'm traveling and don't have
| > my camera at the moment)
| >
| > 11. As a flashlight (again, rarely)
| >
| > 12. As a compass (again, rarely)
| >
| > 13. The thing for which I most rarely use it is as a telephone.
| |
| ..and 14. To check my e-mail if I'm away on vacation.
|

I think I might get along with your wife, the dinosaur.
We could gloat about how many months we've gone
without needing to charge our phones. :)

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

|
| Does Ff have a way to list them, see what resources they use?
| | similar to "about:performance" would be nice.
|

Good question. I don't know.

| I don't have them disabled, but I never accept any page that asks.

When I was reading about the API it seemed to be saying
that if it's enabled, a site can install the script on your end.
Then they have to get permission to use it. But if that's
true you could have lots installed.

On 12/08/2021 23.49, nospam wrote:
> In article <ovgguhxq6d.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think a presidential alert obeys "do not disturb" or "driving"
>>>> modes. It would be against purpose.
>>>
>>> it does not. as i said in another post, that is the only one that can't
>>> be turned off. the other emergency alerts can.
>>>
>>> it's also extremely rare.
>>>
>>> only one presidential alert has been sent in the usa, which was a test
>>> and it pre-announced as to when.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
>> surely, the only one.
>
> there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
>
> <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
>

Presidential.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

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

> >>
> >> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
> >> surely, the only one.
> >
> > there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
> >
> > <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
> >
>
> Presidential.

that one can't, which i've said several times.

the others can be, which i've also said several times.

On 8/12/2021 3:21 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote
>
> | > I use my cell phone for several things:
> | >
> | > 1. To read Kindle books.
> | >
> | > 2. Mostly if I'm not in my home town, to use Google Maps
> | >
> | > 3. To check the weather
> | >
> | > 4. To Look something up on Wikipedia
> | >
> | > 5. To ask Google a question
> | >
> | > 6. Mostly if I'm not in my home town, to make or confirm restaurant
> | > reservations
> | >
> | > 7. To change the settings on my thermostat (I rarely need to do this)
> | >
> | > 8. For Uber (I rarely need to do this)
> | >
> | > 9. To adjust my hearing aids (I rarely need to do this)
> | >
> | > 10. As a camera (again, rarely, and only if I'm traveling and don't have
> | > my camera at the moment)
> | >
> | > 11. As a flashlight (again, rarely)
> | >
> | > 12. As a compass (again, rarely)
> | >
> | > 13. The thing for which I most rarely use it is as a telephone.
> |
> |
> | ..and 14. To check my e-mail if I'm away on vacation.
> |
>
> I think I might get along with your wife, the dinosaur.

No, no, no! She's old (80), but she's not a dinosaur.

> We could gloat about how many months we've gone
> without needing to charge our phones. :)
>
>

--
Ken

On 13/08/2021 01.04, nospam wrote:
> In article <6vjguhxmhe.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
>>>> surely, the only one.
>>>
>>> there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
>>>
>>> <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
>>>
>>
>> Presidential.
>
> that one can't, which i've said several times.
>
> the others can be, which i've also said several times.
>

I'm not contesting that. You must improve your reading skills ;-)

You said that the usa has only sent one presidential alert, and it was a
test one. I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
that for every tornado. In my case, the area they sent the alert to was
limited, ie, only where they expected the tornado to hit.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

In article <6omguhx1tg.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
> >>>> surely, the only one.
> >>>
> >>> there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
> >>>
> >>> <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Presidential.
> >
> > that one can't, which i've said several times.
> >
> > the others can be, which i've also said several times.
> >
>
> I'm not contesting that. You must improve your reading skills ;-)
>
> You said that the usa has only sent one presidential alert, and it was a
> test one.

yep

> I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
> visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
> that for every tornado.

that would be a public safety alert, which can be disabled.

it's also canada, which may do things differently, and that you were
roaming there might also be a factor.

> In my case, the area they sent the alert to was
> limited, ie, only where they expected the tornado to hit.

that makes sense. there's no reason to send a tornado alert to areas
that won't be affected.

it's also why i turned off amber alerts the moment i got the first one.
it was for a kid who was last seen more than 100 miles from where i
was. the chances of me finding the kid are zero.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> 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.

>>>> For private use landlines are a thing of the past. Millennials
>>>> and younger do not have have landlines anymore.

>>> Over here they do, if they have their own home.

>> But it less clear how many even bother
>> to have a landline phone plugged into it.

>>> You simply can not have broadband internet (cable or fibre)
>>> without a landline, because the providers refuse. There is
>>> no technical issue, simply that they refuse.

>> Most of ours don’t bother to plug a phone into the
>> landline anymore, use the cellphones for everything.

> I'm at such a house these days. There is
> a phone connected, but no one uses it.

Yeah. me too. I don’t use mine at all and only get a few
spam calls on it now. Tempted to unplug the phone but
a few do call me every year or two because the number
is still in the phone book. The mobile numbers aren't.

> And it has to be paid for, every month, want it or not.

Our system has scrapped all phone lines now, they
are all voip over the cable, fiber or vdsl2+ or wireless.
The voip service is always free now but you pay for calls.

>>> And broadband internet they often want to have.

>> But that doesn’t have to be done with cable or fiber anymore.

>> Plenty just use their cellphone.

> Not if you are a heavy user.

That’s true here, plenty do use cellphone data or 5G now.

> Say a gamer, or video on demand every day.

Plenty do here.

On 13/08/2021 01.43, nospam wrote:
> In article <6omguhx1tg.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
>>>>>> surely, the only one.
>>>>>
>>>>> there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Presidential.
>>>
>>> that one can't, which i've said several times.
>>>
>>> the others can be, which i've also said several times.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not contesting that. You must improve your reading skills ;-)
>>
>> You said that the usa has only sent one presidential alert, and it was a
>> test one.
>
> yep
>
>> I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
>> visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
>> that for every tornado.
>
> that would be a public safety alert, which can be disabled.

Again. It was a presidential alert.

> it's also canada, which may do things differently, and that you were
> roaming there might also be a factor.
>
>> In my case, the area they sent the alert to was
>> limited, ie, only where they expected the tornado to hit.
>
> that makes sense. there's no reason to send a tornado alert to areas
> that won't be affected.
>
> it's also why i turned off amber alerts the moment i got the first one.
> it was for a kid who was last seen more than 100 miles from where i
> was. the chances of me finding the kid are zero.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 13/08/2021 02.21, Rod Speed wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> For private use landlines are a thing of the past. Millennials
>>>>> and younger do not have have landlines anymore.
>
>>>> Over here they do, if they have their own home.
>
>>> But it less clear how many even bother
>>> to have a landline phone plugged into it.
>
>>>> You simply can not have broadband internet (cable or fibre)
>>>> without a landline, because the providers refuse. There is
>>>> no technical issue, simply that they refuse.
>
>>> Most of ours don’t bother to plug a phone into the
>>> landline anymore, use the cellphones for everything.
>
>> I'm at such a house these days. There is
>> a phone connected, but no one uses it.
>
> Yeah. me too. I don’t use mine at all and only get a few
> spam calls on it now. Tempted to unplug the phone but
> a few do call me every year or two because the number
> is still in the phone book. The mobile numbers aren't.
>
>> And it has to be paid for, every month, want it or not.
>
> Our system has scrapped all phone lines now, they
> are all voip over the cable, fiber or vdsl2+ or wireless.
> The voip service is always free now but you pay for calls.

Over here it is SIP on fibre and we pay for it the same as when it was
real POTS. Not optional at all.

>
>>>> And broadband internet they often want to have.
>
>>> But that doesn’t have to be done with cable or fiber anymore.
>
>>> Plenty just use their cellphone.
>
>> Not if you are a heavy user.
>
> That’s true here, plenty do use cellphone data or 5G now.
>
>> Say a gamer, or video on demand every day.
>
> Plenty do here.

It will never be as good as fibre. 4K video on a wall sized display. 600
mbit/s (and more), symmetrical. Constant, no flickers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

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

> >> I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
> >> visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
> >> that for every tornado.
> >
> > that would be a public safety alert, which can be disabled.
>
> Again. It was a presidential alert.

for a tornado??

why would they classify a weather event as a presidential alert?

or did your phone miscategorize it?

that's very bizarre.

> > it's also canada, which may do things differently, and that you were
> > roaming there might also be a factor.

apparently canada does do things differently.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> On 13/08/2021 01.43, nospam wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

>>>>>>> Well, it seems Canada uses them for tornado warnings. Mine was not,
>>>>>>> surely, the only one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are various types. i turn off the ones that can be turned off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://i.insider.com/5db717acdee0197da025e5b2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Presidential.
>>>>
>>>> that one can't, which i've said several times.
>>>>
>>>> the others can be, which i've also said several times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not contesting that. You must improve your reading skills ;-)
>>>
>>> You said that the usa has only sent one presidential alert, and it was a
>>> test one.
>>
>> yep
>>
>>> I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
>>> visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
>>> that for every tornado.
>>
>> that would be a public safety alert, which can be disabled.

> Again. It was a presidential alert.

It can't have been, Canada doesn’t have a president.

>> it's also canada, which may do things differently, and that you were
>> roaming there might also be a factor.
>>
>>> In my case, the area they sent the alert to was
>>> limited, ie, only where they expected the tornado to hit.
>>
>> that makes sense. there's no reason to send a tornado alert to areas
>> that won't be affected.
>>
>> it's also why i turned off amber alerts the moment i got the first one.
>> it was for a kid who was last seen more than 100 miles from where i
>> was. the chances of me finding the kid are zero.

"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote

| > I think I might get along with your wife, the dinosaur.
| | No, no, no! She's old (80), but she's not a dinosaur.

I was referring to an earlier post, where someone referred
to dinosaurs who leave their cellphones turned off. You
said your wife was one of those.

As it happens, I turned on my cellphone today for the
first time in months. I had to buy another 90 days worth
of use. $20 every 3 months.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
> | 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.
> |
>
> Lately most threads are of little use to anyone. Many or
> most recent posts have no connection to Win10. I guess
> that says something about Win10.
>
> | > 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.
> |
>
> It's simply facts.

See? that's the problem. You think its factual when it isn't.

> It has nothing to do with a superiority
> complex. I happen to think that Euro cultures are generally
> healthier and more mature than the US. But the US, since
> WW2, is the super-power. People need to know English.
> No one needs to know French or German.

That's clearly wrong and condescending.

> (Much to the
> chagrin of the French. :) That's not bragging. And it's not
> my fault.

The fact you believe that to be true is your fault.

> I didn't make anyone learn English. It's just
> the way things are. Even you see it that way. You just
> described English as a "universal language". If people want
> to be upscale hipsters they need to speak English.
>
> Ironically, in large part the US is so powerful and affects
> other countries so much because the Germans tried to take
> over the world. If not for that the US might still be a country
> of insular hayseeds. Instead we're a country of imperialistic
> hayseeds. :)
>
> | > 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.
> |
>
> It wouldn't be on-topic. I understand a bit of Spanish. No
> Mongolian. No German. No Balian. (I don't even know what
> language they speak.)

The island of Bali is in Indonesia so they speak Indonesian. It's a lovely
place.

> Since only the poster would likely
> understand such a post, it would no longer be a discussion.

If it was about windows 10 or iphone or android it'd be fine. In fact over
the years there have been the odd non-English post which people tried to
help with.

> (I actually studied Spanish for 4 years, but I've rarely had
> occasion to use it, so I've forgotten. Everyone else speaks
> English!)

That's you being lazy.

> That's what I'm trying to clarify: Feeling in the minority is
> not an act of aggression by the majority.

It doesn't matter whether you're the minority or not. It's about being
inclusive. Disproportionate US-only posts are not inclusive.

> It's an expression
> of competitiveness on your part. Imagine being a Syrian,
> Palestinian, or any of the other myriad ethnicities that the
> first world mostly ignores. How often do we think about them?

That's why it's our responsibilities to level-up inequalities especially
when our actions caused them.

> How many of us bother to learn their languages?

Don't judge people by your own standards. Plenty do. I speak three
languages and understand two more.

Outside of the US ( and the UK) it's very common for people to learn
multiple languages.

> Do you have
> a superior attitude because you don't know about all those
> people? No. We all relate with the world we find ourselves in.

I go out of my way to understand other's perspectives.

> Why wasn't Germany given to the

> | > 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.
> |
>
> Ah, the famous German sense of humor.

I'm not German.

> Sorry, I should
> have explained that that was actually a mildly self-
> deprecating joke. It was a way of acknowledging the
> crassness of American culture... Never mind... Got any
> good Mongolian jokes?
>
>
>

knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 12:14 PM, Chris wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-03-15/how-covid-has-changed-movement-as-revealed-by-cellphone-data
>
>
> Several months ago the local TV station was giving reports of people
> movements by county.

That's not cell phone, it's smartphones. None of that is possible with
cellular mobile data. You need to be connected to google and have location
tracking turned on.

On 13/08/2021 02.55, nospam wrote:
> In article <pcrguhxasi.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I replied that Canada sent one (a real one), when I was
>>>> visiting, for a tornado, and thus I guess that they are constantly doing
>>>> that for every tornado.
>>>
>>> that would be a public safety alert, which can be disabled.
>>
>> Again. It was a presidential alert.
>
> for a tornado??
>
> why would they classify a weather event as a presidential alert?

Deadly danger?
So that people can not silence the alert?
Error?

I have no idea.

>
> or did your phone miscategorize it?

Who knows. European phone made in China? What are you going to expect? :-D

>
> that's very bizarre.
>
>>> it's also canada, which may do things differently, and that you were
>>> roaming there might also be a factor.
>
> apparently canada does do things differently.
>

Yes, they do. Thankfully, most times :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.