"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > Last week a friend tried to text me. I only give out my land number
| > since I rarely turn on the cellphone. He didn't receive any error.
| > Now I'm wondering how many people are trying to text my landline!
| | Simple solution. Get rid of the landline and go cell only. I did and it
| is great. If you need a phone in every room, cordless work with cells
| these days. But I got rid of my cordless too. Life is much better now...
|

It's not a problem for me. If I used a cellphone I'd
ignore text messages, anyway. This way I can get them,
so people won't try once they understand it's a landline.
There are so many reasons I don't want to use a cellphone:
Wasted money due to high cost. Lack of privacy due to
spying. People wanting to send me texts and expecting me
to answer. You might think that's great. I don't. I watch
everyone I know -- all ages -- gradually become addicted
to diddling their phone constantly.

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:

> In the modern world of IP-telephony there are a wide range of options
> to manage a phone(-system). Learn to use them.
>
> Domestic calls are free since the introduction of IP-telephony.

Already mentioned in another reply of mine, like:

- Google Voice (GV):
- One number to call all my phones. If my phone numbers change
(change employer/workplace, add/remove a phone), I can just edit my
GV account to remove numbers (no longer called), and add others to
call.
- Includes spam filtering.
- Voicemail. (*)
- Sends an e-mail with transcript of voicemail, and link to message.
No need to call into carrier to slowly listen to a message. I can
read a lot faster than but a rare few can speak.
- Option to add call screening. If callers don't say anything when
prompted, I'm likely to disconnect or send them to voicemail. If I
don't select an action, caller gets sent to voicemail.
- For texting feature, GV sends me an e-mail with the text. I can
reply to the text in a phone, or by replying to the e-mail. Texting
is a lot easier on a desktop keyboard then one-finger pecking on a
phone.
- DND (Do Not Disturb) option that immediately sends all calls to
voicemail. Don't use it. Haven't needed it.
- Blacklist is a lot bigger with Google Voice than with my carrier (I
think that's limited to 20 or 50 entries, so I'd have to edit to do
a FIFO cleanup).
- When blacklisting, I can choose to categorize as spam which helps GV
in detecting spam calls (I get a vote, not immediately condemn a
caller for everyone). I can simply block a caller, or report as
spam and block. I can later decided to unblock a caller. Carriers
have a similar feature (but without the spam reporting); however,
using the GV web site is easier than walking through the carrier's
prompts.
- Different outgoing message (OGM) for voice depending if caller is a
contact or not. Contacts get a very short OGM. Unknown callers get
a longer OGM, and that's when wrong dialers and spammers hang up.
- If you use Chrome as your web browser, you can enable web
notifications in the web browser. I don't use Chrome.

- Separation of callers by ring tone:
- Loud ring tone assigned to each contact (a feature of the contacts
app in my phone).
- Softer global ring tone for non-contact callers. Easy to ignore
when awake while I'm out and carrying the phone, and no jarring
calls waking me up.

My cellular carrier has come of Google Voices features, but not all. At
home, GV would call both my home phone, and my smartphones. If I hear
just the cell phones ring, I don't someone is random dialing (since I
*never* publish those numbers), or it's a wrong number. I have to hear
both my home phone and cell phones ring to know the call came through my
GV number which is the only one I publish.

There might be other features in GV and on the phone that I've missed,
or haven't used yet, as well as features in phone setup on my phone, but
I haven't yet needed them. If GV wasn't available (only in the USA, so
far), I'd delve into what features were similar with my cellular
carrier, and lament the features they don't have that GV does. There
are similar PBX services, but they aren't free.

GV has lots of call handling features. So does my phone. I've already
"learned to use them".

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

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Many people here hang up as soon as they hear the answering machine.
>>> They may try again and again and never leave a message.
>>
>> Then their call was unimportant.
>
> You don't understand people.

They don't own me.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> If not a contact, I hear a much softer ringtone, so I'm likely to
>> not bother answering (and they're likely not to leave a message).
>
> Why not just turn the ringer completely off for non-contacts? Less noise
> to listen to. I do. Love that peace and quiet. Most of my non-contact
> calls are spam anyway and fortunately most don't do voice mail.

I might get a call from someone that is not a contact, but I do want
their call. I'm supposed to a Pepboys as a contact because once in 5
years I get a new battery installed by them in my car? Or my clinic or
doctor calling from internal numbers that are different the public phone
number, so I won't know those numbers until called, but I don't know if
those internal number would be the same the next time? Or the grocery
store with whom I rarely communicate until I send them feedback about
transaction, and ask for them to call back? There are still lots of
times I get calls I want from non-contacts, and I want a chance to
accept the call. Just because I'm expecting a call doesn't mean the
caller gets added to my contacts. My contacts list is a special place,
not to get cluttered with anyone that calls me.

>> Only if I'm expecting a call from someone I don't add as a contact
>> (they'll only be calling once), I'll look at the number.
>
> I just switch off the do not disturb (contacts only) function until
> the important non-contact call comes through. On my phone it's a
> swipe and a tick. Easy.

My phone also has the DND feature, but I've not found it useful for me.
See my reply to Joerg on features that I do use. With all those, DND is
like using a canon to swat a fly.

>> Back when we had rotary phones and POTS, no one was forced to answer
>> their phones
>
> Dunno about you but my 50s landline kept ringing until the caller hung
> up. No answering machine. Worse I was on a 4 party line and had to
> listen to other people's rings. I chuckle at what people complain about
> these days... ;)

I remember that, too, for long ago. I'd hear the phone ringing through
an open window while mowing, I was busy and wasn't going to stop, and
when done the phone was still ringing. That was a trick to abuse the
callee: call them, start hearing the ringing, and lay the phone down to
nuisance the callee to answer but no one was on the other end. However,
the telcos eventually put an upper limit on the number of rings, like
10, that someone could wait until the callee picked up. Connections
became too precious to waste on ever-ringing calls.

On 9/5/2021 5:22 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

>> Get rid of the landline and go cell only. I did and it is great. If
>> you need a phone in every room, cordless work with cells these
>> days. But I got rid of my cordless too. Life is much better now...

> If I used a cellphone I'd ignore text messages, anyway.

Easy to do. But cell phones can do so much more than just text.

> This way I can get them, so people won't try once they understand
> it's a landline.

Why not just tell them you're an anti-texter?

> There are so many reasons I don't want to use a cellphone: Wasted
> money due to high cost.

Some prepaid cell plans are cheaper than landlines.

> Lack of privacy due to spying.

Unjustified paranoia is difficult to argue against.

> People wanting to send me texts and expecting me to answer. You
> might think that's great. I don't.

Depends on who's texting. Even my doctor's office does texts these days.

> I watch everyone I know -- all ages -- gradually become addicted to
> diddling their phone constantly.

So you're afraid you'll get addicted too? Repeat after me: I will have
self control when using my cell phone, I will have self control when
using my cellphone, I will have self control when using my
cell phone... ;)

On 9/5/2021 7:46 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> VanguardLH wrote:

>>> If not a contact, I hear a much softer ringtone, so I'm likely to
>>> not bother answering (and they're likely not to leave a
>>> message).

>> Why not just turn the ringer completely off for non-contacts? Less
>> noise to listen to.

> There are still lots of times I get calls I want from non-contacts,
> and I want a chance to accept the call.

So why the separate ringtones for contacts and non-contacts if you look
at every call that comes in anyway?

Am 06.09.21 um 04:34 schrieb VanguardLH:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many people here hang up as soon as they hear the answering machine.
>>>> They may try again and again and never leave a message.
>>>
>>> Then their call was unimportant.
>>
>> You don't understand people.
>
> They don't own me.

But Robin is absolutely right. Sorry.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 05.09.21 um 19:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> I, for instance, do not have any of them. First, the land line is
> mandatory if you want internet (fibre or cable). Then, they install a
> conversion box from voip to pots, and the client only sees pots, with no
> ip features at all; the IP side is not accessible.
>
> If I want VoIP I need another contract with another provider that gives
> VoIP, but nevertheless the "official" land line would remain active and
> has to be paid - or there is no internet.
>
>>
>> Domestic calls are free since the introduction of IP-telephony.
>
> Not everywhere, no, and not every call.
>
> Here, they are free only if you have a /good/ plan. With the low grade
> plans, not all calls are free, or even none at all.

I'm very sorry for you. Don't you live in Spain? I can hardly imagine
that a country in the EU is so underdeveloped. Perhaps a protection for
Telefonica?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 05.09.21 um 17:16 schrieb Mayayana:
> Last week a friend tried to text me. I only give out my land
> number since I rarely turn on the cellphone. He didn't receive
> any error. Now I'm wondering how many people are trying to
> text my landline!

Modern IP-based communication landline-networks offer texting.
It is the downside of the US-numbering system that cellphones do not
have easily recognisable numbers like in most countries in Europe.

That is also a legacy of the old cell-networks like the one of Verizon
and its predecessors.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 06.09.21 um 02:22 schrieb Mayayana:
> It's not a problem for me. If I used a cellphone I'd
> ignore text messages, anyway. This way I can get them,
> so people won't try once they understand it's a landline.
> There are so many reasons I don't want to use a cellphone:
> Wasted money due to high cost. Lack of privacy due to
> spying. People wanting to send me texts and expecting me
> to answer. You might think that's great. I don't. I watch
> everyone I know -- all ages -- gradually become addicted
> to diddling their phone constantly.

Why the hell are you jonining the discussions in this group when you
have absolutely no clue of mobile technology? What could be your
contribution?

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

Am 06.09.21 um 05:23 schrieb AJL:
> On 9/5/2021 5:22 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>> Lack of privacy due to spying.
>
> Unjustified paranoia is difficult to argue against.

That this is not paranoia it is long proven and documented. At the
latest since 2013.

Particularly in the US cellphone users are not secure from spying by
commercial companies and even worse illegaly by law enforcement.

The situation is not much better elsewhere.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 06/09/2021 07.27, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 05.09.21 um 19:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> I, for instance, do not have any of them. First, the land line is
>> mandatory if you want internet (fibre or cable). Then, they install a
>> conversion box from voip to pots, and the client only sees pots, with no
>> ip features at all; the IP side is not accessible.
>>
>> If I want VoIP I need another contract with another provider that gives
>> VoIP, but nevertheless the "official" land line would remain active and
>> has to be paid - or there is no internet.
>>
>>>
>>> Domestic calls are free since the introduction of IP-telephony.
>>
>> Not everywhere, no, and not every call.
>>
>> Here, they are free only if you have a /good/ plan. With the low grade
>> plans, not all calls are free, or even none at all.
>
> I'm very sorry for you. Don't you live in Spain? I can hardly imagine
> that a country in the EU is so underdeveloped. Perhaps a protection for
> Telefonica?

Not at all.

There are several phone companies, I lost count of them; some big and
some small. And there is a multitude of plans with many different pricings.

Some plans include everything: land line, free calls everywhere; mobile,
free calls everywhere; unlimited data; unlimited sms; 1 gigabyte
symmetrical fibre unlimited; TV all channels. And there are other plans
at the other end that include very little and you pay for everything you
do (fantastic if you do nothing, only receive).

Just do not assume that everybody has free domestic calls.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/09/2021 04.33, VanguardLH wrote:
> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> In the modern world of IP-telephony there are a wide range of options
>> to manage a phone(-system). Learn to use them.
>>
>> Domestic calls are free since the introduction of IP-telephony.
>
> Already mentioned in another reply of mine, like:
>
> - Google Voice (GV):

Well, GV doesn't exist here.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/09/2021 07.40, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 05.09.21 um 17:16 schrieb Mayayana:
>> Last week a friend tried to text me. I only give out my land
>> number since I rarely turn on the cellphone. He didn't receive
>> any error. Now I'm wondering how many people are trying to
>> text my landline!
>
> Modern IP-based communication landline-networks offer texting.

Even classical POTS can :-D

There was an experiment here, to have texts delivered to land lines,
long ago. It would result in a machine call to your terminal, and a
computer would read you the text :-D

A friend tried it. He got the calls grouped in the early morning, waking
him up. Oh, just half past eight or so. He quickly opted out of it.

> It is the downside of the US-numbering system that cellphones do not
> have easily recognisable numbers like in most countries in Europe.

Yes, here I can instantly know if a number is fixed or mobile. Starts
with an 8 or 9? fixed. 6 or 7 (I think it is 7)? Mobile.

>
> That is also a legacy of the old cell-networks like the one of Verizon
> and its predecessors.
>

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/09/2021 07.40, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> > Am 05.09.21 um 17:16 schrieb Mayayana:
> >> Last week a friend tried to text me. I only give out my land
> >> number since I rarely turn on the cellphone. He didn't receive
> >> any error. Now I'm wondering how many people are trying to
> >> text my landline!
> >
> > Modern IP-based communication landline-networks offer texting.
>
> Even classical POTS can :-D
>
Yes, our Siemens DECT system which is simply connected to the POTS
landline can send and receive SMS text messages. Persuading anyone
that this is true is quite another matter! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

In article <sh49kr$d4s$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> > Last week a friend tried to text me. I only give out my land
> > number since I rarely turn on the cellphone. He didn't receive
> > any error. Now I'm wondering how many people are trying to
> > text my landline!
>
> Modern IP-based communication landline-networks offer texting.

receiving only.

> It is the downside of the US-numbering system that cellphones do not
> have easily recognisable numbers like in most countries in Europe.

that's a feature, not a bug.

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

| > - Google Voice (GV):
| | Well, GV doesn't exist here.
|

There's a saying in English: Count your blessings. That is,
appreciate how lucky you are. V's description sounds very
creepy to me. Not to mention that Google is collecting his
call transcripts. But screening? How long will it be before I
call someone and have to answer which of 9 cacaphonies
has a crow's call in it? Or maybe I'll need a Google ID? It
amazes me that people are willing to degrade themselves so.
And the geeks are the worst. They all got suckered into
Google's gmail trap and all it took was for Google to tell them
that they were getting special invitations, not available to
just anyone.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote

| >> Then their call was unimportant.
| >
| > You don't understand people.
| | They don't own me.

No. But you could try relaxing a bit. Maybe they don't
want to own you. Maybe they're just trying to reach you
because they enjoy your charming personality... You might
be having great sex now if you'd only answered the phone.
Instead you're stuck here with us, arguing about phone
service. :)

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > If I used a cellphone I'd ignore text messages, anyway.
| | Easy to do. But cell phones can do so much more than just text.
| | > This way I can get them, so people won't try once they understand
| > it's a landline.
| | Why not just tell them you're an anti-texter?
| | > There are so many reasons I don't want to use a cellphone: Wasted
| > money due to high cost.
| | Some prepaid cell plans are cheaper than landlines.

Yes, and I have such a plan. I have a Tracfone, for which
I pay $20 every 3 months. I keep it in the glove compartment,
turned off, in case I want to make a call. I have a ridiculous
number of minutes/texts/data saved up, but I simply don't
have a use for them. I know how to read maps, so I don't
need driving directions. I have a car, so I don't need Uber/Lyft.
I rarely buy takeout food, so I don't need DoorDash. I don't
fancy having a sleazy, for-profit corporation deciding which
friends I want to talk to, so I don't use Facebook.... A cellphone
can do lots of things. And most of the people I know can't stop
doing them.

I could tell people that I'm "anti-texting", but that's difficult
these days. Most people now think of texting as their social
circle of the moment. It's an ongoing conversation. I even have
customers who have complained that they can't reach me
instantly to ask a question. If I used texting that would become
awkward: "I know you text now, so why didn't you answer me?"

An increasing problem is that it's becoming a lifestyle. People
live through their phones. To socialize, shop, get around...
it's all becoming an app-mediated experience. Much of that
is not an improvement. Uber and Lyft were originally called "ride
sharing". It turns out they were just a new idea for getting around
labor laws. DoorDash and similar services have turned out to be the
enemies, not friends, of restaurants. And for every person who
gets habituated to calling out for dinner, that's one more person
who's not only wasting money but they're also adding
vast amounts of unnecessary waste -- plastic and plasticized
cardboard -- to landfills. The Millennials thought they were ushering
in a new age of wondrous convenience. It turns out they've
ushered in an age of alienation, corporate intrusion into private lives,
and spyware. Millennials are so enmeshed in commercialism that
they thought they were the vanguard of a new socialist utopia
and never realized that they had yet to leave the shopping mall.

|
| > Lack of privacy due to spying.
| | Unjustified paranoia is difficult to argue against.

The favorite argument of the ostrich. :) You have no privacy
with a phone or with many of the apps. That's simply a fact.
You may not care, or you may not want to know, but it's
still true. The information about it is endless, but I'll just
give you a link to the most recent article I've collected,
about how police call Google when they want to know who
was at a crime scene during a given time period. It's called
geofencing, and it's based on phone spying:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/google-geofence-warrants/

|
| > People wanting to send me texts and expecting me to answer. You
| > might think that's great. I don't.
| | Depends on who's texting. Even my doctor's office does texts these days.
|

Interesting that you mention that. My own doctor has been trying
to drum up business lately, spamming me via email, phone, and postal
mail. I have a scheduled appt for a checkup, but she wants to add in
more appts. She even sent me a referral recently, telling me to make
an appt with my chiropractor... who I was going to long before I met
this doctor! So I certainly don't need texts from my doctor.

If someone needs/wants to reach me now, they can call. If I
go for a walk, go to bed, eat dinner.... I don't want people
to be able to reach me. I'm not a member of the President's
Cabinet. The message can wait. They can leave a message
on my answering machine. They can email. If they call when
I'm not busy and I'm at home, I'll answer their call. I'm
available.

For my purposes, I have a cheap cellphone in the car, in
case I need to make a call or talk to someone who doesn't
know how to operate without a cellphone. (I've had
people tell me I must call them when I get to their house
because their doorbell doesn't work. More than one person
has done that.) That arrangement provides what I need. I
don't find that I suddenly slap my forehead during a pleasant
walk in the woods and think, "Wow, I could have been texting!!
What was I thinking?!"

| > I watch everyone I know -- all ages -- gradually become addicted to
| > diddling their phone constantly.
| | So you're afraid you'll get addicted too? Repeat after me: I will have
| self control when using my cell phone, I will have self control when
| using my cellphone, I will have self control when using my
| cell phone... ;)

You joke, but look at yourself: You're all worked up because it
bugs you that someone else doesn't want to constantly carry a
cellphone that's turned on. You can't even accept that there
are pros and cons. Yet you want me to believe you're not addicted?

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

| There was an experiment here, to have texts delivered to land lines,
| long ago. It would result in a machine call to your terminal, and a
| computer would read you the text :-D
|

I've heard of that in the US. But so far I haven't received
one. I was surprised that this friend texted me and got no error.
In the past it seems that people have usually received some
kind of error telling them that it was a landline. The irony is that
with all this trouble trying to text, these people could have just
called, and actually talked to me. My landline phone can transfer
audio, enabling a real-time conversation! The fact that they don't
call tells me that their message was probably not worth sending:

"lving now to meet u LOL"

On 06/09/2021 15.29, Mayayana wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
> | There was an experiment here, to have texts delivered to land lines,
> | long ago. It would result in a machine call to your terminal, and a
> | computer would read you the text :-D
> |
>
> I've heard of that in the US. But so far I haven't received
> one.

Here, you had to opt in first.

> I was surprised that this friend texted me and got no error.

Yes, but here I tried once or twice and never got an error.

> In the past it seems that people have usually received some
> kind of error telling them that it was a landline. The irony is that
> with all this trouble trying to text, these people could have just
> called, and actually talked to me. My landline phone can transfer
> audio, enabling a real-time conversation! The fact that they don't
> call tells me that their message was probably not worth sending:
>
> "lving now to meet u LOL"

I find calls intrusive, I prefer texts.

A text I read at a time of my choosing. A call can find me watching a
movie, having a nap, a shower, whatever.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | The OE6 bit is very easy, because they're X-headers, which you can add
> | at will and can contain anything.
> |
> | I've added your OE6 headers to this post (without bothering to
> | try to suppress my User-Agent header). Also note the disclaimer header
> | above these headers. And the one below them! :-)
>
> And the Hampster program you're using provides that option?
> I've never noticed any such options in OE or TBird.

No, it's a function of my newsreader, tin. When composing an article,
tin just passes the required/relevant headers to the editor - in my case
vim - and directly below these headers - i.e. above the quoted/new text
- you can enter any headers you like. When the article is posted, the
newsreader and News server will decide which headers are acceptable and
which are not.

I don't think OE6 or Thunderbird has this functionality, but you
always can save a Drafts message to a .eml [1] file, edit the .eml file,
open the edited .eml file with OE6/TB and then copy the edited .eml back
to the Drafts folder and post the edited message. This is basically the
way you can edit messages - also received messages - in OE6, TB, etc..

So yes, OE6/TB are as smart/'dumb' as the user is! :-)

[1] Or whatever extension OE6 uses for save-message-to-file.

Of what follows below, some I can agree with, some I can only laugh in
wonder at. I'm neither a mobile phone muppet, nor a landline luddite,
but happy to use mobile technology, because here it's better. I do not
have a landline, because it became superfluous - landline broadband is
hopeless around here in Scotland, and despite being ex-directory I
received more spam calls than real, so I discontinued it, and I have a
mobile phone in the form of a tablet, or should that be more
pretentiously phablet, and a SIM in a USB stick plugged in the back of
my router, which gives me 3 or 4 times the speed I was getting less
reliably via landline - not great, I'd like better, but adequate and I
can live with it. I'm not addicted to my mobile phone, I maybe make or
receive a call or two per month. I use Zoom on a laptop for chats with
distant family more often than I use a phone.

But as far as the following goes, much of it is good sense, much of it
bad sense ...

On 06/09/2021 14:23, Mayayana wrote:
>
> I know how to read maps, so I don't
> need driving directions.

I can read a map also, probably better than most, but none of us can
read a map safely while driving, therefore having a mobile phone that
can speak directions while driving is a definite plus, especially when
driving on a UK motorway when a single wrong turn can take you miles out
of your way before there is a chance to correct your mistake. Having
the phone say: "Leave the motorway in one mile and take the <Annn> to
<wherever>" gives you time to get to the nearside lane safely to take
the slip road and leave, and not go past trapped in the outside lane
cursing.

> I have a car, so I don't need Uber/Lyft.

Same here, but sometimes it needs repairing, for which it sometimes it
may need to be left overnight at the garage.

> I rarely buy takeout food, so I don't need DoorDash.

Same here, but that's because the nearest takeaway is six miles away,
and anyway isn't very good.

> I don't
> fancy having a sleazy, for-profit corporation deciding which
> friends I want to talk to, so I don't use Facebook.

Nor me, but sometimes self-employed people get useful business that way.

> A cellphone
> can do lots of things. And most of the people I know can't stop
> doing them.

That's their problem not a problem with mobile phones.

> I could tell people that I'm "anti-texting", but that's difficult
> these days. Most people now think of texting as their social
> circle of the moment. It's an ongoing conversation. I even have
> customers who have complained that they can't reach me
> instantly to ask a question. If I used texting that would become
> awkward: "I know you text now, so why didn't you answer me?"
>
> An increasing problem is that it's becoming a lifestyle. People
> live through their phones. To socialize, shop, get around...
> it's all becoming an app-mediated experience. Much of that
> is not an improvement. Uber and Lyft were originally called "ride
> sharing". It turns out they were just a new idea for getting around
> labor laws. DoorDash and similar services have turned out to be the
> enemies, not friends, of restaurants. And for every person who
> gets habituated to calling out for dinner, that's one more person
> who's not only wasting money but they're also adding
> vast amounts of unnecessary waste -- plastic and plasticized
> cardboard -- to landfills. The Millennials thought they were ushering
> in a new age of wondrous convenience. It turns out they've
> ushered in an age of alienation, corporate intrusion into private lives,
> and spyware. Millennials are so enmeshed in commercialism that
> they thought they were the vanguard of a new socialist utopia
> and never realized that they had yet to leave the shopping mall.

Some of the above is true. The main message is that if an online
product is free, then *you* are the product! However, as you've noted,
most of them are not important for real life, and not a reason in
themselves not to use those online services that are actually useful, as
long as the user is aware of the gotchas in the form of privacy
invasion, personal meta data sharing, etc.

> |
> | > Lack of privacy due to spying.
> |
> | Unjustified paranoia is difficult to argue against.

Yes, most conspiracy theories, however ridiculous they seem to a
rational person, cannot actually be disproved, which is one of the
reasons for their longevity. However, usually they can be made to look
extremely improbable, and in that sense continued adherence to them is a
form of religion.

> The favorite argument of the ostrich. :) You have no privacy
> with a phone or with many of the apps. That's simply a fact.
> You may not care, or you may not want to know, but it's
> still true. The information about it is endless, but I'll just
> give you a link to the most recent article I've collected,
> about how police call Google when they want to know who
> was at a crime scene during a given time period. It's called
> geofencing, and it's based on phone spying:
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/google-geofence-warrants/

Yes, but the courts have to be involved, so private law-abiding
individuals should receive their protection from overly zealous national
or local officials. The main people who should worry about this are
criminals, which is as it should be.

> | > People wanting to send me texts and expecting me to answer. You
> | > might think that's great. I don't.
> |
> | Depends on who's texting. Even my doctor's office does texts these days.

Yes, I receive text reminders the day before dental and other medical
appointments, which I find useful, and presumably the National Health
Service finds reduce the number of missed appointments.

> Interesting that you mention that. My own doctor has been trying
> to drum up business lately, spamming me via email, phone, and postal
> mail. I have a scheduled appt for a checkup, but she wants to add in
> more appts. She even sent me a referral recently, telling me to make
> an appt with my chiropractor... who I was going to long before I met
> this doctor! So I certainly don't need texts from my doctor.

I also receive text reminders of when my annual flu jab is due, which I
find useful as otherwise I'd probably forget. Apart from that, the
doctors only see me when I go to them.

> If someone needs/wants to reach me now, they can call. If I
> go for a walk, go to bed, eat dinner.... I don't want people
> to be able to reach me. I'm not a member of the President's
> Cabinet. The message can wait. They can leave a message
> on my answering machine. They can email. If they call when
> I'm not busy and I'm at home, I'll answer their call. I'm
> available.

Yes, but if you have an elderly relative who might need help at any
time, then the sooner you hear about it the better.

> For my purposes, I have a cheap cellphone in the car, in
> case I need to make a call or talk to someone who doesn't
> know how to operate without a cellphone. (I've had
> people tell me I must call them when I get to their house
> because their doorbell doesn't work. More than one person
> has done that.) That arrangement provides what I need.

Next time, break the door down and suggest they fix their doorbell!

> I
> don't find that I suddenly slap my forehead during a pleasant
> walk in the woods and think, "Wow, I could have been texting!!
> What was I thinking?!"

I know of no-one who would.

> | > I watch everyone I know -- all ages -- gradually become addicted to
> | > diddling their phone constantly.
> |
> | So you're afraid you'll get addicted too? Repeat after me: I will have
> | self control when using my cell phone, I will have self control when
> | using my cellphone, I will have self control when using my
> | cell phone... ;)
>
> You joke, but look at yourself: You're all worked up because it
> bugs you that someone else doesn't want to constantly carry a
> cellphone that's turned on. You can't even accept that there
> are pros and cons. Yet you want me to believe you're not addicted?

One thing that struck me about this year's Wimbledon coverage was the
number of people in the audience who were fiddling with their mobile
phones actually during play, not just during the pauses in play. Why
pay all that money for a ticket, just to not watch the play but fiddle
with your mobile phone exactly as you would if you were sitting at home
on your sofa?

And that's despite every chair umpire saying before the beginning of
every match "If you have a mobile phone with you, please ensure it is
switched off!"

Mayayana wrote:

> I have a car, so I don't need Uber/Lyft.

Are you always sober?

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 05.09.21 um 19:45 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> > I, for instance, do not have any of them. First, the land line is
> > mandatory if you want internet (fibre or cable). Then, they install a
> > conversion box from voip to pots, and the client only sees pots, with no
> > ip features at all; the IP side is not accessible.
> >
> > If I want VoIP I need another contract with another provider that gives
> > VoIP, but nevertheless the "official" land line would remain active and
> > has to be paid - or there is no internet.
> >
> >>
> >> Domestic calls are free since the introduction of IP-telephony.
> >
> > Not everywhere, no, and not every call.
> >
> > Here, they are free only if you have a /good/ plan. With the low grade
> > plans, not all calls are free, or even none at all.
>
> I'm very sorry for you. Don't you live in Spain? I can hardly imagine
> that a country in the EU is so underdeveloped. Perhaps a protection for
> Telefonica?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but (no) free domestic "IP-telephony"
calls has absolutely nothing to do with (not) being in the EU nor with
(not) being "so underdeveloped".

A telecom provider is totally free to (not) bundle 'free' domestic
calls in their plans.