On 06/09/2021 19.59, Mayayana wrote:
> A similar thing happens with events and concerts. Everyone's
> recording it on their phone, rather than watching it. I suppose
> they want to be the first to post it online, which is where the
> *real* reality is happening.

Or maybe they are simply recording it so that they can replay it later,
and remember it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 06.09.21 um 23:17 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 06/09/2021 18.53, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> I even don't know what that should be.
>
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice>
>
> :-)
>
>
> Google Voice is a telephone service that provides call forwarding and
> voicemail services, voice and text messaging, as well as U.S. and
> international call termination[when defined as?] for Google Account
> customers[1] in the U.S., and for Google Workspace (formerly G Suite

> Late in 2009, Google Voice had approximately 1.4 million users, of which
> 570,000 used the service 7 days a week.[15] This number rose markedly
> after Google made the transition of its Google Voice service from
> "invitation only" to be available to all Gmail subscribers in the United
> States. A Wired blog post quoted a figure of 3.5 million in 2013.[16]

Thanks for the explanation.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On 06/09/2021 21.37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>
>> | 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.
>>
>> Yes, I prefer email for that reason. We don't have to
>> both be available at the same time. But my point was
>> that texts are almost never necessary in the first place.
>
> 'texts' (read: SMS) are just an alternative. You don't have to use
> them, but to say "texts are almost never necessary in the first place"
> while also saying "I prefer email" is rather illogical. It's *both*
> messaging, just using different technology.

Exactly, it is just different technology. Maybe "text" is easier to use
and more immediate, shorter. See something curious while riding the bus,
take a photo and send it instantly.

Oh, "text" here is whatsapp.

Necessary or not, depends on the content and the people involved.

Example. I need a plumber to repair something. I wasap him. He is
working, so when he is free he answer, and asks for a photo of the
breakage. I send it. He says, that's a 12 cm whatever, I'll buy one
before going to your place. Is such hour Ok? Better an hour later. ok,
see you tomorrow.

It is a completely necessary exchange for both of us... It has saved
time and effort for both.

>
> FWIW, I use e-mail *and* 'text' (SMS) *and* (other) IM (Instant
> Messaging) [1]. Oh, and I use NetNews. What the heck is *that* good for?
> Can't these people use e-mail lists? Sheesh!
>
> [1] And I use a car *and* public transport *and* I walk. What the heck
> is wrong with me!?

:-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/09/2021 19.25, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> 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
>>
>> 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
>
> My (part-time) Australian mobile provider had kind of a reverse [1]
> feature: When someone called and there was no answer, they could leave a
> (voice) message and that message was transformed into a SMS message
> (i.e. voice-to-text). The resulting message was often a bit wrong and
> often quite funny, but mainly quite useable.
>
> [...]
>
> [1] I.e. not SMS/text over an 'analog' POTS line, but voice-to-SMS/text.
>

Sounds familiar, yes.

There was another experiment to send faxes, too.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 06/09/2021 22:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 06/09/2021 19.59, Mayayana wrote:
>> A similar thing happens with events and concerts. Everyone's
>> recording it on their phone, rather than watching it. I suppose
>> they want to be the first to post it online, which is where the
>> *real* reality is happening.
>
> Or maybe they are simply recording it so that they can replay it later,
> and remember it.

That may be what is happening at concerts, and there were some members
of the crowd doing that at Wimbledon, but the majority of people I was
referring to were looking down at their phones and dabbing around on
them, so obviously they weren't filming the tennis, nor do I think they
were watching it via their phone, because too much finger work was
involved, and anyway why would you watch it on a tiny screen when
reality is before you as large as life. I think Wimbledon &/or the BBC
do provide some gadgetry to allow members of the audience to hear
commentary through an earpiece, because you can see people sitting there
with branded stuff hanging from their ears, but those are not who I was
describing.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 07/09/2021 01.36, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/09/2021 22:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 06/09/2021 19.59, Mayayana wrote:
>>>    A similar thing happens with events and concerts. Everyone's
>>> recording it on their phone, rather than watching it. I suppose
>>> they want to be the first to post it online, which is where the
>>> *real* reality is happening.
>>
>> Or maybe they are simply recording it so that they can replay it later,
>> and remember it.
>
> That may be what is happening at concerts, and there were some members
> of the crowd doing that at Wimbledon, but the majority of people I was
> referring to were looking down at their phones and dabbing around on
> them, so obviously they weren't filming the tennis, nor do I think they
> were watching it via their phone, because too much finger work was
> involved, and anyway why would you watch it on a tiny screen when
> reality is before you as large as life.  I think Wimbledon &/or the BBC
> do provide some gadgetry to allow members of the audience to hear
> commentary through an earpiece, because you can see people sitting there
> with branded stuff hanging from their ears, but those are not who I was
> describing.
>

Then talking and sharing the experience :-D

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 09/06/2021 01:16 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Yes, I prefer email for that reason. We don't have to
> | > both be available at the same time. But my point was
> | > that texts are almost never necessary in the first place.
> |
> | 'texts' (read: SMS) are just an alternative. You don't have to use
> | them, but to say "texts are almost never necessary in the first place"
> | while also saying "I prefer email" is rather illogical. It's *both*
> | messaging, just using different technology.
> |
>
> Yes, but they play different roles. Phone calls are
> used when you need to talk something over, or
> for social visits. Email is used like letters or to send
> messages that are not time-sensitive. Texting, among
> people I know, is used to send brief, badly misspelled
> messages in real time. People expect a quick response.
> And usually the topic is trivial at best and pure
> prattle at worst.

Back in 1995 cellphones were rare and expensive. In-company email was
useful, though, as was the in-company phone system. When I just needed
to impart information more "personally" than via email I called during
lunchtime and left a message, thereby relieving both of us of the
nuisance of polite conversation. When I actually needed to talk to a
person face to face I sent an email with a 'notify me when this is read'
option. I was one of the few people who actually read the entire phone
manual and was probably the only person who knew that that function existed.

It saved me huge numbers of trips to people's offices -- I often
wondered if people wondered why I showed up within a minute of reading
my email. I hope they thought I was psychic.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it
everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every
human being who ever was, lived out their lives." -- Carl Sagan

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
>
> | > Yes, I prefer email for that reason. We don't have to
> | > both be available at the same time. But my point was
> | > that texts are almost never necessary in the first place.
> |
> | 'texts' (read: SMS) are just an alternative. You don't have to use
> | them, but to say "texts are almost never necessary in the first place"
> | while also saying "I prefer email" is rather illogical. It's *both*
> | messaging, just using different technology.
>
> Yes, but they play different roles. Phone calls are
> used when you need to talk something over, or
> for social visits. Email is used like letters or to send
> messages that are not time-sensitive. Texting, among
> people I know, is used to send brief, badly misspelled
> messages in real time. People expect a quick response.
> And usually the topic is trivial at best and pure
> prattle at worst.

Yes, they play different roles and yes texting/IM is often for
quick(er) response, but both e-mail and texting/IM can be used sensibly
and non-sensibly. You're just seeing who is using what for what and from
that observation your judge the medium. But you're not judging the
*medium*, but the *users* which *you* happen to observe.

Example: Business use of e-mail can be totally over the top, some
people get/process hundreds of e-mail messages per day. OTOH, my use of
texting/IM is quite sane. My latest exchange: With my son to discuss if,
where and when to watch the Formula 1 Grand Prix race. So do I think
e-mail is for loons and texting/IM is for sane people?

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/09/2021 21.37, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> >> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> >>
> >> | 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.
> >>
> >> Yes, I prefer email for that reason. We don't have to
> >> both be available at the same time. But my point was
> >> that texts are almost never necessary in the first place.
> >
> > 'texts' (read: SMS) are just an alternative. You don't have to use
> > them, but to say "texts are almost never necessary in the first place"
> > while also saying "I prefer email" is rather illogical. It's *both*
> > messaging, just using different technology.
>
> Exactly, it is just different technology. Maybe "text" is easier to use
> and more immediate, shorter. See something curious while riding the bus,
> take a photo and send it instantly.
>
> Oh, "text" here is whatsapp.

Yeah, here as well, like in the rest of the world, except - for some
strange reason - the US.

> Necessary or not, depends on the content and the people involved.
>
> Example. I need a plumber to repair something. I wasap him. He is
> working, so when he is free he answer, and asks for a photo of the
> breakage. I send it. He says, that's a 12 cm whatever, I'll buy one
> before going to your place. Is such hour Ok? Better an hour later. ok,
> see you tomorrow.
>
> It is a completely necessary exchange for both of us... It has saved
> time and effort for both.

Yes, I have had several/many of those exchanges: Short messages back
and forth, often with a supporting photo/screenshot/document/<whatever>.
Very useful/handy.

Yes, those would be possible via e-mail as well, but not so easily,
quickly and efficiently.

Also an important difference: IM (and even 'texting'/SMS) is oriented
and organized around contacts/people and the *content* of messages,
e-mail is not. Yes, one could have e-mail folders per contact, but those
would show the *list* of messages, not the *content* of those messages.
(That is not a criticism e-mail, because e-mail messages are normally
longer, i.e. not practical to show all at once.)

> > FWIW, I use e-mail *and* 'text' (SMS) *and* (other) IM (Instant
> > Messaging) [1]. Oh, and I use NetNews. What the heck is *that* good for?
> > Can't these people use e-mail lists? Sheesh!
> >
> > [1] And I use a car *and* public transport *and* I walk. What the heck
> > is wrong with me!?
>
> :-)

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

>The battery should still be good.

>How many days does the battery last? Don't power it off.
>are not designed to be powered on/off frequently, so just leave it on.
....
>We need to know how many days does the battery last to judge how good is
>the battery (in normal mode).

Agreed, run it until it shuts down.
That's the best battery test.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433