|
|
TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Aug 2005 16:44:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 350
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Asteroid May End Life on Earth in 2035 (Peter N. Spotts)
Yahoo to Offer Video Clips from CNN, ABC News (Reuters News Wire)
WebEx Purchases intranet.com (Eric Auchard)
Audix Message to Two Mailboxes (stewartmcewen@hotmail.com)
Cisco Releases Software Patch (USTelecom dailyLead)
Want to Buy Tellabs Marconi (Looking for Tellabs Marconi)
Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (Lisa Hancock)
Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator? (Steven Lichter)
Re: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance (Jim Haynes)
Re: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance (Wesrock)
Re: Credit Reports (Steve Sobol)
Re: Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel? (Steven Lichter)
Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users (Steve Sobol)
Re: Nextel False Advertising (DevilsPGD)
Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster (DevilsPGD)
Re: Itunes is a RIPOFF (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine (Harold Hallikainen)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter N. Spotts <csm@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Asteroid May Crash Into Earth in 2035
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:04:53 -0500
By Peter N. Spotts, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Humans live in a vast solar system where 2,000 feet seems a
razor-thin distance.
Yet it's just wide enough to trigger concerns that an asteroid due to
buzz Earth on April 13, 2029 may shift its orbit enough to return and
strike the planet seven years later.
The concern: Within the object's range of possible fly-by distances
lie a handful of gravitational "sweet spots," areas some 2,000 feet
across that are also known as keyholes.
The physics may sound complex, but the potential ramifications are
plain enough. If the asteroid passes through the most probable
keyhole, its new orbit would send it slamming into Earth in 2036. It's
unclear to some experts whether ground-based observatories alone will
be able to provide enough accurate information in time to mount a
mission to divert the asteroid, if that becomes necessary.
So NASA researchers have begun considering whether the US needs to tag
the asteroid, known as 99942 Apophis, with a radio beacon before 2013.
Timing is everything, astronomers say. If officials attempt to divert
the asteroid before 2029, they need to nudge the space rock's position
by roughly half a mile -- something well within the range of existing
technology. After 2029, they would need to shove the asteroid by a
distance as least as large as Earth's diameter. That feat would tax
humanity's current capabilities.
NASA's review of the issue was triggered by a letter from the B612
Foundation. The foundation's handful of specialists hope to
demonstrate controlled asteroid-diversion techniques by 2015.
Last Wednesday, representatives from the foundation met with
colleagues at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to review the
issue. The foundation's letter marks the first time specialists in the
asteroid-hazard field have called for a scouting mission to assess
such a threat.
"We understand the risk from this object, and while it's small, it's
not zero," says David Morrison, the senior scientist at NASA's
Astrobiology Institute at the Ames Research Center at Moffett Field,
Calif.
The call for a reconnaissance mission also illustrates how far the
field of asteroid-hazard assessment has come.
"Ten years ago, we would have been blissfully ignorant," says Donald
Yeomans, who heads NASA's near-Earth object project at JPL. Today, at
least five programs worldwide are hunting down near-Earth
objects. NASA is well on its way toward achieving its goal of
cataloging 90 percent of the near-Earth objects larger than 0.6 miles
across by 2008. And it is devising ways to ensure that information
about potential hazards reaches top decisionmakers throughout the
government.
Based on available data, astronomers give Apophis -- a 1,000-foot wide
chunk of space debris -- a 1-in-15,000 chance of a 2036 strike. Yet if
the asteroid hits, they add, damage to infrastructure alone could
exceed $400 billion. When the possibility of the asteroid passing
through two other keyholes is taken into account, the combined chance
of the asteroid hitting the planet shifts to 1 in 10,000, notes Clark
Chapman, a senior scientist with the Southwest Research Institute in
Boulder, Colo.
"A frequent flier probably would not want to board an airliner if
there's a 1-in-10,000 chance it's going to crash," he says.
The asteroid in question was discovered last June. Initially, it
looked as though it might strike Earth in 2029. But additional
observations eliminated that possibility. Instead the asteroid will
come within 22,600 miles of Earth -- just inside the altitude where
major communications satellites orbit. The asteroid will be visible to
the naked eye in the night skies over Europe and western Africa, where
it will appear a bit dimmer than the North Star.
But this estimated distance carries an uncertainty that spans several
thousand miles either side of its expected path -- a region of space
that includes three gravitational keyholes.
JPL's analysis will look at several factors. One involves estimating
whether additional ground observations will be sufficient to resolve
the question of whether the asteroid will pass through one of the
keyholes. The asteroid belongs to a class known as Atens, which orbit
the sun in less than a year and pass through Earth's orbit. Because
Atens spend so much of their time in the direction of the Sun,
observations from Earth are difficult. After next year, the next
opportunity to gather data on the asteroid from the ground will come
in 2012-2013.
In addition, questions remain over how long a tagging mission -- and if
necessary a deflection mission -- would take to plan and execute. If
missions can be mounted in six years or less, NASA could postpone a
decision to tag the asteroid until 2014. This would give astronomers
time to incorporate their latest observations as they refine
calculations of Apophis's orbit. But if a tagging mission took seven
to eight years and a diversion mission took another 12 years, the case
grows for launching the tagging mission sooner rather than later.
Dr. Yeomans, the head of the near-Earth-object program at JPL, says
the next step is to examine whether additional ground-based
observations are likely to solve the collision riddle in a timely
fashion.
"I can't stress this enough: The overwhelming most-likely scenario is
that radar and optical data this year and next or in 2012 and 2013
will completely remove the impact probabilities," he says.
"If this is the case, why are we worried now? If it's a 1-in-15,000
shot and we come up a loser," there's still time to mount a tagging
and a deflection mission, he says.
========================
Special Offer:
https://www.csmonitorservices.com/csmonitor/subscription/print_sub.jhtml?I04T06
Get 32 issues FREE! Subscribe to the Monitor today.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Chrstian Science Publishing Society.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
------------------------------
From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Yahoo to Offer Video Clips from CNN, ABC News
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:53:20 -0500
Internet media company Yahoo Inc. on Monday said it will offer video
clips from cable news network CNN's Web site and ABC News, a move to
bolster the company's online news offering as it battles against
Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.
The clips, which will become available in September, will be free to
internet users and supported by advertising revenue. CNN is owned by
Time Warner Inc. and ABC News by Walt Disney Co.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
------------------------------
From: Eric Auchard <auchard@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: WebEx Communications Purchases intranet.com
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:54:54 -0500
By Eric Auchard
WebEx Communications Inc. a Provider of Online business meetings, on
Monday said it agreed to buy privately held Intranets.com for about
$45 million in cash, seeking to target small business clients.
WebEx, which has typically focused on helping big customers such as
Boeing and the Defense Department conduct meetings online, said the
acquisition of Intranets.com helps WebEx expand to serve organizations
of under 100 employees.
Intranets.com of Burlington, Massachusetts offers communication
services to more than 300,000 paying subscribers and 10,000
businesses.
"This is all about unlocking the wide(r) strategy of going after
100-person (or less) companies," WebEx president Bill Heil said in a
phone interview.
Intranets.com, which was founded by a group of ex-Lotus Development
Corp. employees in 1997 after IBM (NYSE:IBM - news) acquired Lotus,
provides collaborative software that allows teams of people to
collaborate remotely on projects.
Santa Clara-based WebEx has been gaining market share in the
fragmented market for video conferencing in recent years, in spite of
the entry of Microsoft Corp. two years ago after it acquired WebEx
rival PlaceWare.
A study by Frost & Sullivan found WebEx held 60 percent of the online
meeting market in 2004. With revenue growth of 23 percent this year,
WebEx is growing faster than the online meeting market, which analysts
estimate is growing 18 percent.
WebEx has begun targeting the consumer and small business market with
a new offering it calls MyWebEx.
Both WebEx and Intranets.com share a common sales approach, which
includes billing customers a recurring monthly subscription fee. Both
offer their software as hosted services that customers use over the
Internet, Heil said.
WebEx offers online meetings, while Intranets offers a set of online
office software tools, including databases, calendaring, scheduling
and other project management tools.
The Intranets.com deal has been unanimously approved by the board of
directors of each company, the two companies said in a statement. The
transaction is expected to close in the current quarter, subject to
customary closing conditions.
WebEx shares rose 1 percent to close at $28.89 in Nasdaq trading ahead
of the announcement of the deal. The shares were unchanged in
after-hours trading.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
------------------------------
From: stewartmcewen@hotmail.com
Subject: AUDIX Message to Two Mailboxes
Date: 2 Aug 2005 07:34:00 -0700
Hi Everyone,
I wondered if anyone could let me know of a way of having a message
delivered to two mailboxes at once on the audix system.
I have a client who have a small office and they wish for the two
directors to be able to pick up each others voicemail.
I have tried to explain that you can change to a different mailbox my
doing **7,once logged in, and then enter the extension details.
But the problem is we have just migrated from call express where the
option was straight forward (simple check box) and a copy of the
message was saved in each mailbox.
Of course as it was available before, the client wishes it available
now ... sigh!
Anyone out there know if this is possible? I have checked the Avaya
documentation and done a search on the web, but no joy.
Thanks a great deal in advance.
Regards,
Stewart
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:23:44 EDT
From: USTelecom dailyLead <ustelecom@dailylead.com>
Subject: Cisco Releases Software Patch
USTelecom dailyLead
August 2, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23527&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Cisco releases software patch
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Vonage, WISP team up on VoIP
* Ring tone market cools
* The StarVox metamorphosis
* Cablers' phone services have Wall Street listening
* Qwest, Comcast report earnings
USTELECOM SPOTLIGHT
* TELECOM '05: Preparing You for What's NEXT
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Mobiles edge closer to becoming wireless wallets
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* FCC chief eyes looser regulations for DSL services
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=23527&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: offers@nortelreseller.com
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:56:42 +0100
Subject: Want to Buy: Tellabs Marconi
WTB Tellab
5367 High Density Port Module- E1 28
5572 High Density E1/T1 LIM 175
5382 Byte End Switch Module 2
550N High Density E1/T1 Port Shelf 1
5366 High Density Time Slot Interchange 2
5386A Port/Group Controller 2
5535A Power Module - Network and Port (PM-NP) 2
LOT-FIBER Fiber Optic Cabling 1
LOT-LAN LAN Cabling 1
81.532LMP00 MAU 532L Kit Port 1
5576 High Density Port Bay 7' 1
80.2358 Back panel kit w/ext HW 1
5550 Breaker Frame alarm panel 1
WTB Marconi
131-8773/01 i/f mod for 16x2 mbit Rx ( 120 Ohms ).......qty 12
131-8494/01 Conn Set 16x2 Mbit (sym Pair ) type A.......qty 4
131-8494/02 Conn Set 16x2 Mbit (sym Pair ) type B.......qty 4
131-8775/02........qty 2
131-7800/01........qty 2
131-6926/03........qty 3
Contact offers@sdhpdh.com
www.sdhpdh.com
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?
Date: 2 Aug 2005 07:00:00 -0700
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Traditional Bell had a habit of
> always using an 'X' to mean 'e(X)change', as in PBX (P)rivate
> (B)ranch e(X)change, FX as in (F)oreign E(X)change, and PAX as
> (P)rivate (A)utomatic e(X)change. An exception was FAX as in
> (FACS)imile Service. But you asked about EAX which was (E)lectronic
> (A)utomatic e(X)change, or another name for an electronic and
> automated switchboard. Of course there is also CENTREX or a
> (C)entral Office e(X)change. The only difference between a PBX and a
> PAX is the former involved an operator at a manual cordboard in a
> company and the latter was the same thing but an 'automated
> switchboard'. ...
There was also "NNX" which internally meant exchange. For the longest
time nobody could tell me where that term came from. Finally I learned
it was because N was 2 thru 9 and X was 1 thru 0. Of course that is
obsolete now since exchanges are NXX these days. Then of course the
big city exchange building that I had my tour in and learned this stuff
is now abandoned and empty. Where the switchgear that served 40,000
lines is, the service center (for repair calls) and the TSP operators
moved to I have no idea.
It appears Bell called all customer exchanges "PBX" whether they were
dial or manual. I have a 556 (cordboard for a dial PBX) manual and it
refers to the system as a PBX. The term "PABX" (private automated
branch exchange" seems to more used by Automatic Electric and the
independents. The private Philadelphia city goverment system even had
that named labeled right on the dial card "city automated exchange".
(Supposedly modern signs for phones to this day at the airport still
say this, but I can't visit the airport to check and certainly
couldn't take pictures on account of security. When I was young
people were welcome to visit the airport and they even had a rooftop
observatory.) Anyway, I suspect the use of the word "automatic" was
sort of a marketing ploy by Automatic Electric Co to push that they
sold dial systems over Bell's manual systems.
I wonder where the biggest non-Bell private system was. These could
be pretty complex with multiple locations and tie-lines and thousands
of stations.
(At risk of duplicating past posts): When the suburban NJ Lindenwold
High Speed train (PATCO) opened in 1969, they installed a separate
private telephone exchange for internal use just as rail lines had
done for years. They picked up a used step-by-step switch. They had
a tie trunk into the Phila transit private system. For passengers,
they had second-hand pay phones, painted red, at stations who needed
assistance with the automatic gates. If the psgr owed money, they'd
put it in the pay phone. While they modernized the phones and gear,
the system remains in use to this day.
A brand new line, the NJT River Line, uses an intercom phone. You
press a button and an automatic dialer connects you to their service
desk. Sometimes you get a busy signal, no answer, or a voice mail,
which isn't very helpful to a psgr on a platform who needs help. The
intercom is very hard to hear on open platforms. They also put at
least one pay phone on every platform. I believe these were installed
to mostly serve as 911 stations in case of emergency although there
are no signs indicating such. Photos are forbidden there as well.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do know that in Chicago in years
past, Illinois Bell's largest customer was the City of Chicago itself,
and its two largest _private_ (non-government) customers were the
University of Chicago (19 position switchboard in three 'ranks' or
position groups) and Standard Oil (a 'mere' ten or twelve position
board but with a _huge_ number of private tie lines to various
corporate locations plus a few hundred thousand dollars per month in
long distance traffic, etc). Outside the city limits but served by
Illinois Bell there were United Airlines and its Unitel network and
the federal government with its Autovon network. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Bell System and GTE Telephone Operator?
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:53:59 GMT
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Steven Lichter wrote:
>> As you said when TSPS systems came online things changed. I worked a
>> lot of the TSPS conversons, the directors had to be modified and
>> tested then we had to move 800 and payphone detection systems and
>> convert them for TSPS. As the changes were made fewer and fewer
>> offices Toll offices and a few remotes. ... I
>> remember some of the operators coing into the CO to see what we were
>> doing, they were either very young kids or older woman who had been
>> operators for years, they were transfere to other offices and jobs, it
>> was really said.
> Both veteran operators and Brooks' "Telephone" said TSP/TSPS wasn't as
> satisfying as cord switchboards. TSP did all the interesting stuff
> automatically. From the company's and customer's viewpoint, it was
> much more efficient. Occassionally, they still had to 'build up' a
> call by relay the old fashioned way. One time I had trouble placing a
> call and the operator did that for me, it was interesting to listen.
> I wonder if they can (or would) do that today.
> For some reason, my home exchange was served by two types of
> operators. If we just dialed zero, we got a older toll & assist
> cord board in one location. But if we dialed 0+ or 1+ from a
> payphone, we went to a TSP office in a different location. That TSP
> did not handle plain 0 calls for some reason even though it was part
> of the design. (One other quirk we had: local Info was 411, long
> distance was 1+ac+555-1212. But distant Info within the area code
> (short range toll calls) was explicitly stated to go through 0.
> Then they went to 555-1212 for local Info (to discourage use). Now
> we're back to 411 for everything. I don't know when they hit you
> with a charge.)
>> The same came as we converted our offices to EAX.
> The good old days. What's "EAX"?
>>(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Traditional Bell had a habit of
> always using an 'X' to mean 'e(X)change', as in PBX (P)rivate
> (B)ranch e(X)change, FX as in (F)oreign E(X)change, and PAX as
> (P)rivate (A)utomatic e(X)change. An exception was FAX as in
> (FACS)imile Service. But you asked about EAX which was (E)lectronic
> (A)utomatic e(X)change, or another name for an electronic and
> automated switchboard. Of course there is also CENTREX or a
> (C)entral Office e(X)change. The only difference between a PBX and a
> PAX is the former involved an operator at a manual cordboard in a
> company and the latter was the same thing but an 'automated
> switchboard'. I am not well-versed enough to tell you what small
> distinction there was between EAX, PAX and PBX but I guess there was
> something. After all, Bell was always right about everything,
> weren't they? PAT]
I would guess that is they had to do a relay to local operators it
could be done.
EAX was Automatic Electric's version of an analog electronic switch,
they had an EAX1 and for a short while an EAX2, plus AE Canada had a C1
EAX, we had one of those in here in Califoria, big error, they were made
for very small offices.
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance?
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:12:18 GMT
You can still send a telegram, according to www.westernunion.com
I guess you can still send a Mailgram; somebody sent me one last year.
jhhaynes at earthlink dot net
------------------------------
From: Wesrock@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:29:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Personal Opinion Telegram and Mailgram - Discontinuance?
In a message dated 1 Aug 2005 10:51:02 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> Western Union with the US Post Office also offered a popular and
> profitable service known as Mailgram. WU would send your message to a
> teleprinter in a post office where it would be delivered in the next
> mail. This was a prompt and cost-effective way to communicate
> important information. Industries used it extensively to officially
> notify laid-off workers to return to work.
There were only a limited number of post offices, covering a wide
regional area, that received Mailgrams and put them in the mail. The
one serving Oklahoma was, I believe, located in Wichita, Kansas, which
meant with the vagaries of the Postal Service's mechanized mail
routing that a Mailgram took two days from Wichita to Oklahoma City
(160 miles). This was usually no faster than it would have been by
ordinary mail.
In the days before the Postal Service went to a mechanized mail
sorting and distributing system, Wichita to Oklahoma City, and v.v.,
was overnight. So was Kansas City to Oklahoma City and v.v., Fort
Worth and Dallas to Oklahoma City and v.v., Wichita Falls to Oklahoma
City and v.v.'
Now, mail between Lawton, Oklahoma, and Wichita Falls, Texas, about 40
miles apart and considered a single market area, takes two days.
Unless you use the curious and unusual mailbox at the Lawton post
office marked "Wichita Falls only," which presumably bypasses the
mechanized system and goes directly from Lawton to Wichita Falls,
rather than making a mechanized stopover in Oklahoma City and another
one in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. (Yes, they have three mailboxes
rather than the usual two -- "Local," "Out of Town." "Wichita Falls
only."
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Credit Reports, was Re: AT&T Customers Taken Over By Alltel
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:46:07 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Charles Cryderman wrote:
> Yes Steve, it is my understanding that this is a Federal Law.
Ahh, ok. The unconditional you-get-one-free-report-per-year law is
new, though. The law that's been in effect for years is "you're
entitled to a free report at any time if you've been denied credit or
employment within the last thirty days, based on your credit report."
I assume that's the law that you just referred to?
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Apple to Add Trusted Computing to the New Kernel?
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 03:48:19 GMT
Monty Solomon wrote:
> Cory Doctorow
> People working with early versions of the forthcoming Intel-based
> MacOS X operating system have discovered that Apple's new kernel makes
> use of Intel's Trusted Computing hardware. If this "feature" appears
> in a commercial, shipping version of Apple's OS, they'll lose me as a
> customer -- I've used Apple computers since 1979 and have a Mac
> tattooed on my right bicep, but this is a deal-breaker.
> http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html
Apple is going to lose a lot of it fans when they switch.
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Use of a Mysterious Cookie Irks Some Internet Users
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:50:26 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
news.rsvl.unisys.com wrote:
> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in message
> news:telecom24.347.8@telecom-digest.org:
>> By DAVID KESMODEL THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
>> Earlier this summer, Uno Bloom, a songwriter in Brentwood, Tenn.,
>> noticed that his home computer appeared to be slowing down. He
>> searched the files on his hard drive in an effort to uncover clutter,
>> and found dozens of Internet cookies labeled "2o7.net."
> Maybe I'm being dim, but I don't see how cookies will make a system slow
> down appreciably.
Well, Spybot detects 2o7.net tracking cookies as spyware. Maybe Uno
Bloom was mistaking cookies for spyware.
I think that the effect of a website storing cookies on your computer
is typically blown way out of proportion by the press and much of the
computer industry.
Of course, I do still block cookies from netshelter.net, 2o7.net,
advertising.com and several other similar companies that try to put
them on my computer because I don't think there's any great need for
anyone to be tracking which banner ads I've been shown. (I know they'd
disagree.) :)
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Nextel False Advertising
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:34:09 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a cellular telephone company told
> you 'we have no roaming charges' would you take that to mean (1) we
> have arrangements with other carriers and do not charge you _extra money_
> for roaming, or would you take that statement to mean (2) we do not
> have any roaming at all? Since in the past, the subject of excessive
> charges for 'roaming' on another carrier's network has often times
> been an issue (since resolved by many carriers with 'national' plans
> such as the old AT&T), wouldn't you think that statement would be
> interpreted as (1) above? PAT]
Roaming doesn't always mean on another carrier's network, it can also
be roaming outside your local area, but on your carrier's network.
Also keep in mind that Nextel phones can roam on other carrier's
networks in Mexico and Canada, as well as on other iDEN networks.
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:34:09 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.335.10@telecom-digest.org> DevilsPGD
<spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> What kind of dumbass wouldn't try to sell it for $20?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: _This_ kind of dumbass probably. At the
> internet cafe here in town, the guy who runs the place typically
> offers his refurbished, reloaded machines for $50-100 each, and
> considering how little income I have otherwise I would like to recoup
> my expenses (usually a few hours work) somewhere around ten dollars
> per hour; in other words a wee bit above minimum wage. But I have
> heard Chris (the guy who runs the internet cafe) listen to some very
> sad stories from guys then reduce his price to 20-35 dollars on a
> specific request for 'hardship rates', which is probably how I would
> do it also. In other words, try to make some money for your work, and
> as circumsances dictate, give it away.
I think you misunderstand -- I'm suggesting that the owner would try
to sell it as-is (infected, formatted, whatever) for $20 rather then
simply discarding the machine.
If any time/energy is spent cleaning up the machine then the price
goes up. That's reasonable.
> Also I would like to comment on your allegation 'the only way to get
> infected is by user stupidity'. I think that is sort of a harsh
> assessment. _Not everyone_ who owns a computer knows everything about
> it; some guys work hard; save their money and buy a computer only to
> have some virus writer load some crap from a web site onto his page.
The point is that very little is involved in not getting infected. I
browse to URLs in spam, I run WinXP machines outside my firewall, I
search warez/crack sites (mostly looking for cracks to my company's
products, although occasionally when I need to test a feature of
crippleware or when a vendor is too slow or I'm too impatient)
> Not every program which gets loaded on your computer is there because
> you gave an okay to load it in.
Yes, it is.
> I am reasonably intelligent, yet I have had that crap dumped on me
> before my hands were quick enough to hit a key combination to stop
> the load from occurring. PAT]
It's simple: Don't give it permission to start installing and you don't
need to rush to stop it.
When a Microsoft patch appears on your screen and wants to install,
think to yourself "Did I do something that would trigger this?" or
"Is this expected?" -- If the answer is no, then it's not legitimate.
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: itunes is a RIPOFF
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 06:50:45 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.349.9@telecom-digest.org>, AES
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Posters on the first three of various newsgroups, in a to date very
> lengthy thread, have posted:
>>> I stand behind it! My decision to dump TV was a good one and I'm
>>> definitely happy with it.
>> They called the area in which Leipzig or Dresden sits (I can't
>> remember which city) the valley of the dumb during the time of the
>> DDR, as the West German TV was not available to them because of the
>> geography.
>> So if you wish to separate yourself from the world in this way, go ahead.
>> You will regret it one day, I assure you.
> I just got in on the tail end of this thread, but I wonder if
> something I heard (or think I recall hearing) on NPR the other day is
> (a) true?, and (b) relevant -- viz.
> Professional TV producers and other network personnel commonly
> speak of "content" and "fill" in their TV programming.
> To them, "content" refers (really!) to the **advertising** part of
> their programming.
> And "fill" refers to all the rest of stuff (aka junk) that they have
> to (reluctantly) intersperse between the advertising, to get people
> to watch the (much more important) "content".
> Notes:
> 1) If this is not true, apologies. I'm pretty sure I heard it, but I
> was driving at the time and could have misheard it.
> 2 I've added comp.dcom.telecom to the reply list, not to drag that
> group into the rest of this otherwise not very great thread, but because
> there may be some professionals there who know if the above assertions
> are correct.
> 3) Even if it's not true, it's entirely believable (especially to
> anyone who's watched cable TV).
> 4) By this definition, certain TV channels -- e.g., the shopping and
> "infomercial" channels -- have managed to reach the happy situation of
> having 100% "content" and zero useless "fill".
> 5) If it's actually true, and it's NPR who let the secret out, you can
> fully understand why the Bush administration is all out to kill NPR.
It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that actual _producers_ of programs would use
those words in that manner.
Program producers have no knowledge of, nor control over, nor
(generally) any interest in, _what_ advertising runs during the airing
of their program. They know they have a specified total running time
for the program, and that there will be 'breaks' at specified
intermediate points in that total.
That timing information, alone, is sufficient for program
design/production purposes. It allows them to script 'minor crises',
and/or other 'hooks' to occur just before the 'break', to maximize
viewer retention -- either for when they come back to the program, or
for the eyeball count while the commercials are running, depending on
ones biases. ;)
Similar reasoning applies to network management -- they know that the
programs are what attracts the eyeballs, and it is those eyeballs that
are the 'saleable commodity' that is the ultimate source of all the
revenues generated by selling ads.
People -producing- ads wouldn't use that kind of language -- you
*very*, VERY, rarely see a sequence of ads from the same seller that
have continuity of the 'story' from one ad to the next. That is the
only situation where there would be thought given to what is running
'between the ads'.
It is _possible_ that network staff involved in =selling= ad-space
might refer to events in that manner; however I have never heard it.
And I have (long ago) worked selling TV air-time.
------------------------------
From: harold@hallikainen.com <harold@hallikainen.com>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Remote Access to Answering Machine
Date: 2 Aug 2005 07:48:23 -0700
Regarding fax machines continuing to dial incorrect numbers, FCC rule
63.318 (http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2005/68/318/) requires fax
machines to give up if the call does not go through. This requirement,
however, does not apply to "computer driven dialers."
Harold
FCC Rules updated daily at http://www.hallikainen.com
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and
other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the
moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #350
******************************
|
or 