nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sob0cu.e5o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > you greatly underestimate the extent of the impact.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't. I'm talking about taking action *before* letting it turn
> > > > into a mess. *Now* it's obviously too late and any thorough repair will
> > > > indeed be very painful. That's exactly what I meant.
> > >
> > > you're backpedaling.
> >
> > nospam can't read for comprehension != Frank is backpedaling.
>
> nope.

Yep.

> frank is pretending to know more about the north american phone system
> than those who live in there and are *deeply* familiar with it.

Why do you always misinterpret/misrepresent what people wrote?

I didn't/don't pretend any such thing. If you think I did, I'm sure
you can provide a cite. (BTW, I'm still waiting for the last one you
didn't deliver.)

So have fun engaging more of your army of logical fallacies.

QED. HTH, HAND. EOD. NL.

On 12/2/2021 10:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> So sms is right that not *many* people do, but nospam is kind of right
> as well, assuming he means that (quite?) *some* people still do.

Those pay-per-minute calls still exist, but they're becoming rarer, both
in the companies that offer them and the people that use them. At least
in the U.S. they are for a) people that use their phones only for urgent
use and b) for people that don't realize that they're often paying _way_
more than they'd pay on an inexpensive monthly plan or yearly plan.

$10 a year on the grandfathered T-Mobile plan gets you 100 units (voice
minutes and/or texts) since each voice minute or text costs 10¢. That's
why Bev was complaining about spam calls, though of course she always
has the option of just ignoring calls from unknown sources, and it's
free to check voice mail from a landline (805 637 7243 for T-Mobile).

On Red Pocket, an MVNO that offers plans on AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon,
you can get, for $30 per 360 days (not per month), 2400 minutes plus
12,000 texts, plus 2.4GB of data (divided equally every 30 days); this
is only on their T-Mobile service
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133196831828>, if you want AT&T it's $60 per
year <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058476404>, if you want Verizon it's
$84 per year <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133051277200> for different
quantities of voice, text, and data.

That many minutes and SMS on the T-Mobile grandfathered plan would cost
$1440, though of course no one on that 10¢ per unit plan would ever do that.

$7 per 30 days for 1000 Talk, Unlimited Text, and 1GB of data, is
probably less than a lot of people pay for pay-as-you-go, especially if
they're on the basic Tracfone service which has pretty high minimums to
keep service active. A 30 minute/30 day plan is 8.99 while a 60
minute/90 day plan is $19.99.

In article <sob9ij$8lq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On Red Pocket, an MVNO that offers plans on AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon,
> you can get, for $30 per 360 days (not per month), 2400 minutes plus
> 12,000 texts, plus 2.4GB of data (divided equally every 30 days); this
> is only on their T-Mobile service

red pocket is *awful*. i tried it several years ago.

On 12/2/2021 11:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:

<snip>

> Indeed, you didn't have to add an extra digit (not digitS) to your
> phone numbers, but you had to change the organzation/layout of your
> system many, many times. (As we repeatedly said,) We had to change our
> system only *once* during our lifetime. I hope you don't mind that we
> prefer one single change over many.

LOL, adding new area codes, using overlays, requires no new layout. When
they used to do area code splits your area code did change but it was
hardly the catastrophe that you try to make it out to be.

By good planning, the NANP, created by AT&T in the 1940's, the number of
connections could grow to many billions of lines while protecting the
investments of smaller carriers in their older equipment until they
could upgrade to ESS. The last mechanical switch in the U.S. wasn't put
out of service until 1998, and there were still some operating in Canada
after that.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 8:13 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/1/2021 12:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> >>> AFAICT, *everybody* in the US pays the called-party costs for a
> >>> 'landline' to mobile call.
> >>
> >> Not me. There in no extra charge for landlines calling my mobile
> >> and visa versa. So your 'everybody' apparently doesn't include me.
> >
> > You snipped this part:
> >
> >>> The people with a contract with some bundle of minutes, just pay
> >>> out of their bundle. That might not be of any concern to them,
> >>> but they still pay, FSVSVO 'pay'.
>
> I snipped it because it doesn't apply to me. My CONTRACT says nothing
> about a bundle of minutes. Or bundle of anything.
>
> > So you 'pay' out of your bundle of minutes, which is probably
> > unlimited, hence my "FSVSVO 'pay'".
>
> Your playing with words. I have no bundle of anything. I simply have
> unlimited calling and pay nothing extra as long as I call within the
> continental USA.

Apparently a difference in terminology. Here "unlimited calling" is
often called an "umlimited bundle". One can have an unlimited bundle for
calls (and normally SMS) or/and an unlimited bundle for data.

But you're right, *you* don't pay anything extra. Case closed.

> >> So attacking the person and not the subject is OK if he does it to
> >> you first?
>
> > It's not a question of "first". He uses his bag of dishonest tricks
> > all the time. The "attacking the person" (non-)argument - which he
> > also plays - is just semantics. When someone acts dishonestly all
> > the time and doesn't change his behaviour despite many people
> > objecting to it, then that person is not just *acting* dishonestly,
> > but *is* dishonest. That's not "attacking the person", that's stating
> > a fact. "No, he's not a thief, he just steals all the time."? I don't
> > think so.
>
> Wow. That's a BIG paragraph of complaints. If you dislike this person so
> much why not just ignore him? Likely much easier on your blood
> pressure... ;)

I think you still don't get my position.

I *do* ignore him (well, most of the time :-)), but he doesn't ignore
me and responds to - some of - my posts by misrepresenting, falsifying
context, lying by ommision, etc.. Sorry, but I don't let people get away
with that, not without a least a slap on the wrist.

IOW, do you ignore someone who frequently/'constantly' harasses/
annoys/bothers/<whatever> you in a public place?

In article <sobaom$hde$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The last mechanical switch in the U.S. wasn't put
> out of service until 1998,

not true.

> and there were still some operating in Canada
> after that.

true.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 11:48 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Indeed, you didn't have to add an extra digit (not digitS) to your
> > phone numbers, but you had to change the organzation/layout of your
> > system many, many times. (As we repeatedly said,) We had to change our
> > system only *once* during our lifetime. I hope you don't mind that we
> > prefer one single change over many.
>
> LOL, adding new area codes, using overlays, requires no new layout. When
> they used to do area code splits your area code did change but it was
> hardly the catastrophe that you try to make it out to be.

Semantics. I go by the many changes which nospam and you (and maybe
some other(s) (Bev?) described. Now both he and you are backpedaling.
And FTR, it's not a "catastrophe" (i.e. an event) but (IMO/IOO) a
"mess" (i.e. a situation).

Anyway, enjoy your plan, we'll enjoy ours.

On 12/2/2021 11:13 AM, sms wrote:

> my neighbor, an ex-cop said that it was not illegal for police to go
> into private parking lots [to cite unregistered vehicles in CA]

Most traffic laws here don't apply on private property. For example we
have several miles of private roads in my compound (retirement
community) and you don't LEGALLY need a drivers license or registration
to drive on them. However the HOA requires them and can fine you if
caught. But the cops here have no jurisdiction on our roads for
most traffic laws. (There are some traffic laws that do apply on private
property like hit and run and drunk driving but they are few)...

On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>>
>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>
>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> So why is it an issue here?
>
> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
> about it.

It only matters if you have to pay for each phone call -- which is the
way that prepaid plans work. At least that's how mine works. I deeply
resent paying 20 cents for something I would regard as a nuisance
bordering on attack even if it were free.

Some asshole is making money by annoying me at my expense. I wouldn't
cry if every single one of those people died a painful death. I might
even pay 20 cents to watch.

You never get a call from the same number a second time. There's no
point in blocking numbers.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

In article <sobfb6.otk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > Indeed, you didn't have to add an extra digit (not digitS) to your
> > > phone numbers, but you had to change the organzation/layout of your
> > > system many, many times. (As we repeatedly said,) We had to change our
> > > system only *once* during our lifetime. I hope you don't mind that we
> > > prefer one single change over many.
> >
> > LOL, adding new area codes, using overlays, requires no new layout. When
> > they used to do area code splits your area code did change but it was
> > hardly the catastrophe that you try to make it out to be.
>
> Semantics. I go by the many changes which nospam and you (and maybe
> some other(s) (Bev?) described. Now both he and you are backpedaling.

nobody is backpedaling, except maybe you.

> And FTR, it's not a "catastrophe" (i.e. an event) but (IMO/IOO) a
> "mess" (i.e. a situation).

it's not a mess at all.

> Anyway, enjoy your plan, we'll enjoy ours.

ok.

On 11/30/2021 10:58 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 11:10 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with
>>>>>> the consequences, news at eleven.
>
>>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can
>>>>> make all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US,
>>>>> no time limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with
>>>>> me.
>
>>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>>> elsewhere.
>
>>> So why is it an issue here?
>
>> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
>> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them.
>
> The issue Frank brought up and I was referring to was why are separate
> mobile numbers needed?
>
> But as to your issue, the USA folks who pay per call/minutes do that
> voluntarily so as to get a super cheap plan. Pay a few bucks more like I
> do and spam calls are all free... ;)

Big difference between $10/year and $20/month.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

On 12/2/2021 2:08 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:58 AM, AJL wrote:

>> the USA folks who pay per call/minutes do that voluntarily so as to
>> get a super cheap plan. Pay a few bucks more like I do and spam
>> calls are all free... ;)

> Big difference between $10/year and $20/month.

I think my plan is the cheapest one for me. Your plan with my use would
likely cost me thousands...

On 11/30/2021 11:15 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>>>
>>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>>
>>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>>> So why is it an issue here?
>>
>> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
>> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
>> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
>> about it.
>
> Very, very few U.S. residents are on a mobile plan that doesn't include
> a sufficient number (or unlimited) voice minutes that they have to worry
> about this.
>
> The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
> residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10 cents
> per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at all. You
> only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active. This is one of
> the least expensive plans in the U.S.. I once had a flip phone with this
> plan for a backup phone, but T-Mobile coverage is so poor in my area
> that I just let it expire and lost about $150 in credit.

Thanks! T-Mobile's coverage map is at best optimistic. You get
coverage in major metro areas and around freeways, but not on the actual
slope where I ski (and where my Verizon friend has no trouble) -- I have
to drive a few miles away to where there's apparently a tower in the
town itself.

I live within a quarter mile of an interstate and I get adequate signal,
but not 'good'. Still, there are places where nobody gets a signal
(Sequoia NP, for instance), so I shouldn't complain.

> There is a free plan, with no income qualifications, that is 25MB of
> data and 10 SMS per month that would be good to use with Google Voice.
> 25MB of data would get you about 125 minutes of talk time. That would
> cost around $162/year on the T-Mobile 10 cents per minute plan.

If I needed a phone outside my home more than occasionally I'd probably
get something like that, but so far it hasn't been necessary. Back when
we were doing a lot of traveling, the only time I remember using a pay
phone (yeah, a LONG time ago!) was at the Grand Canyon -- I called the
office to see if we'd won the contract. We hadn't.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqi3vh.id8.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>> > knowing where they are located.
>>
>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>
> no reason why it should.

Because you said: knowing where they are located.
With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.

On 11/30/2021 11:54 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 12:15 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 11/30/2021 10:10 AM, Rob wrote:
>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2021 4:41 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/2021 1:33 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> when your [US] system is broken by design, you're faced with the
>>>>>>> consequences, news at eleven.
>>>>
>>>>>> After I pay my $20/mo/phone (plus tax, fees and data) I can make
>>>>>> all the calls I want from anywhere to anywhere in the US, no time
>>>>>> limit, no extra charges. That system is just fine with me.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, for most people it's a non-issue, both in the USA and
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> So why is it an issue here?
>>>
>>> The issue appears to be that people in the USA (with a mobile phone)
>>> are getting scam calls and they have to pay to receive them. Whereas
>>> people in other countries just block the number and don't worry
>>> about it.
>>
>> Very, very few U.S. residents are on a mobile plan that doesn't include
>> a sufficient number (or unlimited) voice minutes that they have to worry
>> about this.

Daughter the Tour Director wears her phone around her neck. She NEEDS
an unlimited plan.

>> The person that started this thread is one of those very, very few
>> residents. She's on a grandfathered T-Mobile plan that charges 10 cents
>> per minute and 10 cents per SMS, and doesn't support data at all. You
>> only have to add $10 per year to keep the plan active. This is one of
>> the least expensive plans in the U.S..

THE cheapest. Good enough for my needs. If you work it out it's 20
cents a minute, though. Maybe 10 cents for messages, and 25 cents to
send a photo.

> That's the plan my wife uses on her flip-top phone, and also what I used
> to use several years ago. Coincidentally she just paid $10 to T-Mobile
> today to keep the plan active.

It's getting harder and harder to find T-Mobile top-up cards. Some
top-up functions charge an additional fee -- one year I had to do one of
those. Last year I bought codes from Walmart, which was painless.
Ralph's supermarket just added a rack of phone-specific gift cards,
which includes both $10 and $25 T-Mobile cards.

--
Cheers, Bev
Linux: The penguin is mightier than the sword

In article <slrnsqiev7.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
> >> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
> >> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> >> > knowing where they are located.
> >>
> >> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
> >> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
> >
> > no reason why it should.
>
> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.

same here.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 10:26 AM, Rob wrote:
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>>> which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>>> simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>>> knowing where they are located.
>>
>> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>
> Well yes, you have to know where the area code is located, and they are
> not contiguous.
>
> Since the system began in the days of rotary dial phones, the area codes
> that were the fastest to dial went to the locations that were called the
> most, hence New York getting 212, the fastest area code to dial. Los
> Angeles got 213. Chicago got 312. Area codes with zero as the middle
> digit were undesirable and went to less populated areas.

There was little attention paid to that aspect here. I also wondered
about it sometimes. Why use the 0, the most difficult to dial number,
as the area code introducer.

Short area codes in the Netherlands:

010 Rotterdam
020 Amsterdam
030 Utrecht
040 Eindhoven
050 Groningen
070 den Haag

As can be seen, they are roughly ordered in city size/importance order,
but the first and last digit are 0 which would better have been 1
for maximal efficiency.

5-digit area codes are even worse, as the "central" location of the
zone would get the 0xx00 area code, when that did not have a short
area code (like the abovementioned large cities, and over time also
some smaller cities that got a 0xy short dialcode with y != 0).

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqiev7.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>> >> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>> >> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>> >> > knowing where they are located.
>> >>
>> >> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>> >> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>> >
>> > no reason why it should.
>>
>> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
>> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
>
> same here.

You would have to remember the entire table.
In our system, similar to a postal code, you know where it is by
looking at the first digits.
(I think that is the same with the Dutch and US postal code)

In article <slrnsqig6n.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> >> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
> >> >> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
> >> >> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> >> >> > knowing where they are located.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
> >> >> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
> >> >
> >> > no reason why it should.
> >>
> >> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
> >> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
> >
> > same here.
>
> You would have to remember the entire table.

nope. you only need to know where the places you call are located.

most people don't call every single area code. in fact, i doubt anyone
does.

as has been explained, area codes were allocated based on population
density (for the most part, as with everything, there exceptions).

these days, it doesn't matter, since phones will do the lookup for you.
incoming calls without cnam (caller id name), which include all mobile
calls, will show the city/state (or country if international). if the
number is in your address book on the phone, that will be displayed.

> In our system, similar to a postal code, you know where it is by
> looking at the first digits.
> (I think that is the same with the Dutch and US postal code)

unless you memorize every postal code, you still have to look it up to
find out exactly where it is.

you might know the general area, but that's about it, and at least with
the usa zip codes, there are some exceptions, so even that won't always
be accurate.

zip codes can also change:
<https://faq.usps.com/s/article/ZIP-Code-The-Basics>
Due to an increase in population or to the improve postal operations,
the US Postal Service® will occasionally add a new ZIP Code or change
ZIP Code boundaries.

tl;dr don't rely on memorization.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsqig6n.1g9.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4 format,
>> >> >> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers, including
>> >> >> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
>> >> >> > knowing where they are located.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is located
>> >> >> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
>> >> >
>> >> > no reason why it should.
>> >>
>> >> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
>> >> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
>> >
>> > same here.
>>
>> You would have to remember the entire table.
>
> nope. you only need to know where the places you call are located.

I start understanding why people hate you so much here. You cannot
stay on the same topic even for a single sentence.

In article <slrnsqihet.cjr.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> > nanp was designed to have fixed length numbers, with a 3-3-4
> >> >> >> > format,
> >> >> >> > which has several advantages over variable length numbers,
> >> >> >> > including
> >> >> >> > simpler phone switches and easier to remember numbers as well as
> >> >> >> > knowing where they are located.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, the contrary! In your system the knowledge of where 212 is
> >> >> >> located
> >> >> >> brings you nothing w.r.t. the location of 213.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > no reason why it should.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because you said: knowing where they are located.
> >> >> With our area code, it is easy to know where they are located.
> >> >
> >> > same here.
> >>
> >> You would have to remember the entire table.
> >
> > nope. you only need to know where the places you call are located.
>
> I start understanding why people hate you so much here. You cannot
> stay on the same topic even for a single sentence.

it's exactly on topic.

there is no need to memorize the entire area code table.

it's you who is avoiding things.

On 11/30/2021 12:56 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>
>> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
>> money, not me.
>
> I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
> data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
> sharing with you adequately.

I understand that. What I get from google is extremely useful. What
they get from me is worthless, no matter how much they resell it for. I
certainly couldn't profit from it myself, so I have no complaint.

I don't care how much money Bezos et al. make either. Not my problem.

I really wish I'd bought google and amazon stock right at the beginning,
though. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by not buying xerox :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
He's your god. They're your rules. *You* burn in hell!

On 11/30/2021 09:16 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 01.12.21 um 00:29 schrieb Java Jive:
>> On 30/11/2021 20:56, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 29.11.21 um 18:53 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>> On 11/29/2021 02:36 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> That's my provider's job and certainly not Google this evil company.
>>>>
>>>> Tradeoffs. Benefit vs risk. Anything they know about me costs THEM
>>>> money, not me.
>>>
>>> I fear you do not understand the business model of Google. You and your
>>> data are the raw material that Google converts into profits without
>>> sharing with you adequately.
>>
>> Exactly right. In her book, which I am currently reading, "The Age Of
>> Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff describes social media's
>> appropriation of first our on-line lives and then how they began on our
>> real-life spaces with Google Street View. Using, I suppose, a sort of
>> quasi-economics jargon, 'behavioral surplus', to describe the
>> money-making meta-data we give away, meaning *ALL* the meta-data from
>> *ALL* customer's interactions with their services, so that's not just,
>> say, the search terms you enter into Search, but also your GMail address
>> book and the contents of your GMails as well, and much more besides.
>>
>> If there's sufficient interest. I'll post some excerpts.
>
> Yes. Please do! But please in digestable quantities.

What you're asking for is the Executive Summary.

I worry about the harm the surveillance can cause. I don't think that
people who want to sell me something will want to harm me in any way,
although spam is a real annoyance.

Not so the governments. They have guns and can only get my money by --
ultimately -- threatening to use them.

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.

On 12/2/2021 1:03 PM, AJL wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 11:13 AM, sms wrote:
>
>> my neighbor, an ex-cop said that it was not illegal for police to go
>> into private parking lots [to cite unregistered vehicles in CA]
>
> Most traffic laws here don't apply on private property. For example we
> have several miles of private roads in my compound (retirement
> community) and you don't LEGALLY need a drivers license or registration
> to drive on them. However the HOA requires them and can fine you if
> caught. But the cops here have no jurisdiction on our roads for
> most traffic laws. (There are some traffic laws that do apply on private
> property like hit and run and drunk driving but they are few)...

I was surprised at what my neighbor said as well, but he did say that if
a parking lot is open to the public, even if it's on private property
(like a shopping center), that it's legal for the cops to cite vehicles
parked there for expired registration or for no front license plate.

We could probably finance a lot of new public infrastructure by raising
the fine for no front license plate to $1000, and begin ticketing
vehicles that don't have one. I've counted sometimes, and it's about 1
in 12 vehicles in my area that lack a front license plate.

On 12/01/2021 01:05 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.21 um 19:29 schrieb nospam:
>> In article <slrnsqa3b6.846.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
>> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The USA used to be technologically ahead of many other countries.
>>
>> it still is.
>>
>>> Today, it has fallen behind. But some of the Americans have not
>>> yet received that message, and still think they are doing something
>>> right. However, those days are long gone!
>>
>> false.
>
> Very right. The weak point of the US is the infrastructure (telecom,
> roads and bridges, electrical utilities, postal services etc. etc. and
> the health care system is a total disaster).

It's fortunate that other countries can profit from looking at the
mistakes we made because we were the first creators/users and we could
actually afford such things. Nigeria, say, has never been able to
afford to string phone wire so they can just bypass that stage. If
their people are dirt poor they have to devise systems that are
affordable. There are real advantages to being a first-world country,
but 'cheap' isn't necessarily one of them.

Enjoy standing on our shoulders, ungrateful copycats!

--
Cheers, Bev
You're such a loser that if there was a contest for losers
you'd come in second.