|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 267 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Mobile email-to-speech gateways solutions for mild stroke victims?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Re: Mobile email-to-speech gateways solutions for mild stroke victims?
Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
====== 28 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
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, and other stuff of interest.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:31:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Mobile email-to-speech gateways solutions for mild stroke victims?
Message-ID: <h9ps8q$v95$1@news.albasani.net>
Michael Grigoni <michael.grigoni@cybertheque.org> wrote:
>I somehow thought that 'Google Voice' had something similar as well.
SMS to speech isn't offered by Google Voice. Good idea though. You
should suggest it.
Perhaps you're thinking of voicemail transcription?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:45:09 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <qI_vm.195143$8B7.161047@newsfe20.iad>
John David Galt wrote:
> Monty Solomon quotes the New York Times:
>
>> Large companies would love to use paperless billing rather than the
>> mail: it reduces their costs and at the same time allows chest
>> thumping about being green. But offering their customers positive
>> sweeteners hasn't been very effective. T-Mobile tried another tack:
>> a stick instead of a carrot. What woe it brought upon itself,
>> however, when it told customers it was time to switch or pay up.
>
> AT&T doesn't yet charge, but it offers and encourages paperless
> billing. However, about a year ago, I had to switch back -- because
> AT&T's "paperless bills" are PDF files, and they began using a
> version of Adobe newer than my computer can read. And I don't see
> why I should upgrade.
>
> Anyone who sends out files in proprietary formats to the public --
> including owners of web sites -- should be using old versions, since
> it's their job, and not each viewer's, to anticipate such problems.
But, the Adobe Reader is free. There are features that require keeping
the reader current.
PDF is virtually the de facto standard for keeping documents in their
original format across platforms.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:17:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <h9quk1$sn7$1@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
In article <qI_vm.195143$8B7.161047@newsfe20.iad>,
Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>PDF is virtually the de facto standard for keeping documents in their
>original format across platforms.
PDF is rarely ever the original format. It has the advantage that
it can't by modified by Joe Consumer, and that its specification is
public, so there are other implementations besides Adobe's. I use
xpdf.
PDF, by the way, is actually a "container" format, similar to AVI or
the .VOB files on a DVD, only specialized for text rather than
multimedia. This makes it less general than PostScript, which is a
full Turing-complete programming language, but also makes it feasible
to parse. PDFs can contain text, links, images, fonts, and
annotations, plus the metadata that describes how these all tie
together.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:03:46 GMT
From: "wdag" <wgeary@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <CE8wm.35$0H3.29@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
"Sam Spade" <sam@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:qI_vm.195143$8B7.161047@newsfe20.iad...
> John David Galt wrote:
> > AT&T doesn't yet charge, but it offers and encourages paperless
> > billing. However, about a year ago, I had to switch back -- because
> > AT&T's "paperless bills" are PDF files, and they began using a
> > version of Adobe newer than my computer can read. And I don't see
> > why I should upgrade.
> >
> > Anyone who sends out files in proprietary formats to the public --
> > including owners of web sites -- should be using old versions, since
> > it's their job, and not each viewer's, to anticipate such problems.
>
> But, the Adobe Reader is free. There are features that require keeping
> the reader current.
The Adobe Reader, past a certain version, will not "upgrade" onto an older
platform that some of us can't afford the (forklift) upgrade for.
And more and more "HTML" sites are demanding a viewer newer than MS IE6,
with the same non-support for upgrade.
***** Moderator's Note *****
When I find sites that can't/won't use Firefox, I complain to the
owners of the company. You may be surprised at how well this works:
Microsoft-only sites are usually the result of poor programmer
education, not IT policy.
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:04:57 -0700
From: Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <4AC14119.8060205@thadlabs.com>
On 9/28/2009 2:31 PM, wdag wrote:
> [...]
> The Adobe Reader, past a certain version, will not "upgrade" onto an
> older platform that some of us can't afford the (forklift) upgrade
> for.
Win7 down to Win2K-SP4 will run the latest Adobe Reader 9.
WinNT-SP6 and Win2K-SP2/SP3 are limited to Reader version 7.0.9.
Basically, Adobe Reader works on any OS that's still supported by the
OS vendor; my sole Win2K-SP4 system still receives the periodic
security updates from Microsoft and is supported.
To see what Readers are available from Adobe, visit this page:
http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/
> And more and more "HTML" sites are demanding a viewer newer than MS
> IE6, with the same non-support for upgrade.
IE (any version) is not a good browser. Even the latest version for
Vista (8.0.6001.*) or Win7 (8.0.7100.*) will only get a score of about
25 (out of 100) using most browser validation suites. See:
http://www.w3.org/
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3
http://acid3.acidtests.org/
Good browsers for Windows systems include:
Firefox: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html
Opera: http://www.opera.com/download/
Safari: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
Seamonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/
Amaya: http://www.w3.org/Amaya/User/BinDist.html
Windows platforms running an OS older than Win2K are over 10 years old
and will continue to be less capable as time progresses. Even WinXP
is not coming back, though it, like my Win2K system, will probably
receive security and OS updates until it's 10 years old (~2013).
Modern systems, new and refurbed, can be purchased for between US$200
and US$300 as I did last year and earlier this year. The least
expensive system I bought was a Compaq with AMD X2 64 as open box for
US$207 at Office Depot and the most expensive was an HP Pentium 64
Dual-Core refurbed from Fry's Electronics for US$299. These all have
2GB to 4GB RAM, large disks, and many features.
You can see those systems here (topmost 5 from left to right):
http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Thad_desk.jpg
I did upgrade the CPUs in all of them because I needed hardware
virtualization support (I'm a hardware and software developer), but
they ran Vista very well in their stock configuration and they
dual/triple boot into Vista + {Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, Win7}.
Struggling with 10+ year-old systems doesn't make economic sense since
fans and disks are approaching end-of-life -- they will fail and
repairs will likely cost more than buying a new modern system.
This is the 21st Century. :-)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:14:10 -0400
From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <op.u0zphwgko63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net>
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:31:09 -0400, after what wdag <wgeary@verizon.net>
wrote, our esteemed Moderator wrote:
> When I find sites that can't/won't use Firefox, I complain to the
> owners of the company. You may be surprised at how well this works:
> Microsoft-only sites are usually the result of poor programmer
> education, not IT policy.
Well, Bill, perhaps you should put your complaining talent to good use
with T-Mobile, whose my.t-mobile.com seems to frustrate so many browsers
(even the ones it is reportedly "designed for" :-) ).
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:46:35 -0700
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: What if People Don't Take the Bait to Go Paperless?
Message-ID: <LJ_vm.195144$8B7.45342@newsfe20.iad>
Thad Floryan wrote:
> A PDF is about the most universally accepted and recognized file
> format for documentation portability with the exception of plain ASCII
> text files. I use the Adobe Reader on my Windows systems and xpdf on
> UNIX and Linux. The PDF file format is 100% publicly documented (as is
> PostScript).
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I thought PDF files were Postscript: not so?
PDF files retain the orginal document perfectly. That may, or may not,
involve postcript.
Date: 28 Sep 2009 23:25:44 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Mobile email-to-speech gateways solutions for mild stroke victims?
Message-ID: <20090928232544.46232.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
> I've encountered mention of landline operators in other countries
> offering landline phones with SMS send/receive capabilities, but I
> have not (alas!) filed away just who, or which countries.
BT does in the UK. You need to get a suitable phone, but it's
a normal feature on normal POTS (not ISDN) lines.
R's,
John
Date: 28 Sep 2009 23:23:52 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Guess What Texting Costs Your Wireless Provider?
Message-ID: <20090928232352.46206.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>>Fido with the reminder that it's $1.45/minute to roam in the US.
>
>[That is] ridiculous. AFAIK you can purchase a new prepaid US phone
>for $10 with a $10 air time included.
Indeed, but it doesn't have your phone number that everyone knows.
That's always the tradeoff with getting a local SIM.
R's,
John
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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 Bill Horne. 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.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 The Telecom digest (9 messages)
|
or 
