28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 
 

Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 325 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens 
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens 
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens  
  Re: I'm back
  Re: I'm back
  AT&T U-verse
  Re: I'm back


====== 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: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:22:08 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <137a5944-c96f-4b94-8bea-20a2b833f51c@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> On Dec 10, 9:35am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: > Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote: > > as humanity, and they are, after all, children - but for adults > > to bleat about the consequences of giving such tools to children is > > like telling kids that they shouldn't touch the firearm dad keeps > > in the drawer next to his bed. > > But this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. I don't > think it's the advance of technology that has caused these problems, > but the conservatism brought on by the threat of lawsuits. This is quite true. In the old days a teacher would often merely orally reprimand a kid for a minor transgression (e.g., running in the halls or not having a pass). Today administrators routinely slap out detention or even expulsion punishments for small offenses. The reason--as widely reported in the newspapers--is to cover their butts from lawsuits from other parents. In the 'sexting' issue, the parents who are in favor of criminal prosecution are those whose kids have received such images; they want the senders punished.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:22:12 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <6fafc301-759b-40a4-9e93-682591dd38e9@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> On Dec 10, 9:39am, sfdavidka...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote: >> ... back then, lots of kids didn't have cameras at all, if they >> did, they were quite cheap; only a rare few had good ones. > > Almost every kid I knew had an Instamatic. True, that if you wanted > to develop a naked photo you couldn't just give it to > Walgreen's. You had to know someone with a darkroom. But finding > those people was as easy as finding someone who could sell you dope. I respectfully have to disagree, having been involved in photography back then. There were of course other kids who had both the skill to develop pictures and access to a darkroom to do it in. But they were a small number. Further, while some kids might be quite eager to develop nude shots, there were many others who would find it objectionable. Plenty of kids, then and now, were not into the "wild side" of things and wanted no part of it, being nude photography, drugs, cheating, skipping school, pranks, or other youth activities. Also, there was some degree of supervision to high school and club darkrooms and some kids wouldn't want to take the risk of getting caught and kicked out. (Further, in my day, most people with Instamatics took color pictures. Of those kids who could develop in high school, the vast majority could only do b&w, color processing was harder and required more equipment.) Which is my point--today no 'middleman' or willing associate is needed, no special equipment is needed--nothing is needed beside the cellphone every kid carries at all times. (Many kids might have access to a camera, but they didn't carry it around with them.) As mentioned before, _distribution_ today is extremely easy, simply an email click away. Back then distributing photographic enlargements meant a trip to the post office for the heavy envelope. How many copies would a kid mail out? Further, back then distribution meant another kid would have a physical picture in his/her possession, easy enough to drop and have to explain. A cell phone image won't fall out onto the floor of a classroom. >> We must remember that information that once stayed hidden in the >> bottom of a file cabinet is now easily indexed and accessed >> remotely via computers and the Internet. To say an element of >> information was "always out then, nothing has changed" is not at >> all accurate; much has changed thanks to computers. > > But should our reaction change? I really don't think so. Again I must respectfully disagree. Because of the ease in which information (any information, be it nude photos or personal history) is captured and disseminated, the rules have to change to protect individuals' privacy. To put it another way, in my day some kids produced underground newspapers, it was reasonably easy to type up a stencil, get it mimeographed, and stand on the corner and pass it out. Some of those papers were quite shocking (by intent). I can't help but suspect some of the producers had second thoughts about their work when they grew older and were happy they were forgotten. Which they would've been; it's extremely unlikely a prospective college or employer would ever find out. But today, many kids discover the hard way their their ancient explicit social website or wild times has come back to haunt them. Society has always placed safety guards on dangerous machinery.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:11:57 -0600 (CST) From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.0912102305290.8476@John-Maysons-iBook-G4.local> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, David Kaye wrote: > School administrators are ready to throw the book at students with naked > photos on their cell phones not because the photos are any worse or any more > available than the Polaroids of old, but because the courts have awarded > ridiculous judgments to plaintiffs in cases involving anything that can be > even remotely construed as "sex". This has been the reason so many employers have zero-tolerance for anything that even remotely reeks of "sex". All it takes is one person, be it an employee or student, to do something stupid and suddenly the employer or school is a "hostile environment". > This stifling does not just apply to photos on cell phones, either. > Parents can't just build playground equipment anymore. Local jurisdictions > such as cities and counties can tear them down because they don't meet certain > safety requirements and the jurisdictions are afraid of being sued. Now, to > put up playgound equipment requires about a $20,000 investment in the "right" > equipment that has been type-approved. No more tire swings. Due to court rulings here in Texas it's darned near impossible to find a pool with a diving board. On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, David Kaye wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> back then, lots of kids didn't have cameras at all, if they did, >> they were quite cheap; only a rare few had good ones. > > Almost every kid I knew had an Instamatic. True, that if you wanted > to develop a naked photo you couldn't just give it to Walgreen's. You > had to know someone with a darkroom. But finding those people was as > easy as finding someone who could sell you dope. I was the most nave kid on the planet and I knew how to get this done. Didn't know a thing about dope, but needed something developed. What I'm saying here is if I knew how it was probably very common knowledge in 1982. John -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA ***** Moderator's Note ***** I probably matched you in navet, but "knowing how" and "doing" are always different things: remember that we all "knew how" to make babies, but very few of us actually got the chance to risk doing so during our high school sentences. I was a member of the photo club at my school, and I made my own passport photos at the tender age of eighteen, so I "knew how" to run a darkroom and mix chemicals (at least for B&W prints), but I wouldn't have dared to recreate any racy images: we just didn't do that where I came from. I'm no saint, you understand; the reason I wanted a passport was a reflection of activities I both engaged in and contemplated which were not "politically correct", then or now - but dealing in sexually-explicit pictures just wasn't done. We could debate endlessly on the social standards, societal value imprinting, and socioeconomic norms that affected my actions. The end result was that we just didn't do that. Times, as I said, have changed, but children have not. The point I tried to convey in my previous post on the subject is that we, as a society, need to come to a consensus on our sexual mores and expectations, and to convey those rules to our kids. So far, we're laging way behind our children in dealing with this issue. FWIW. YMMV. Bill Horne Moderator
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:23:11 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: I'm back Message-ID: <cd84e26d-1cc1-4ac0-9bc6-41732737f93d@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Dec 10, 7:48pm, Telecom digest moderator <redac...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote: > After a couple of weeks in the hospital, a dozen meetings with Doctor > Poke N. Prune, three surgeries, and a lot of reading, I'm officially > cured. I'm resuming my post as Moderator, and I look forward to > getting back to work and to improving The Telecom Digest in the time > ahead. > > My heartfelt thanks go to Bruce Bergman, who stepped up and did a > great job despite having to learn more about Linux than any volunteer > should need. Bruce's experiences and his comments about the Digest's > internal setup will go a long way toward helping me improve things. > > Thank you, Bruce! I owe you one! > > -- > Bill Horne > Moderator Glad you're back and hope you're feeling better. Thanks to the substitute team!
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:11:29 -0800 (PST) From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: I'm back Message-ID: <5d1d3d98-542e-428f-afe2-f4a66f591372@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> On Dec 10, 6:48pm, Telecom digest moderator <redac...@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu> wrote: > After a couple of weeks in the hospital, a dozen meetings with Doctor > Poke N. Prune, three surgeries, and a lot of reading, I'm officially > cured. I'm resuming my post as Moderator, and I look forward to > getting back to work and to improving The Telecom Digest in the time > ahead. > > My heartfelt thanks go to Bruce Bergman, who stepped up and did a > great job despite having to learn more about Linux than any volunteer > should need. Bruce's experiences and his comments about the Digest's > internal setup will go a long way toward helping me improve things. > > Thank you, Bruce! I owe you one! > > -- > Bill Horne > Moderator ============== Welcome back Bill! Thank you Bruce! Neal McLain Resident Cable TV mole
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:51:49 -0800 From: Steven <diespammers@killspammers.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: AT&T U-verse Message-ID: <hfttb8$dkm$1@news.eternal-september.org> I have had DSL for some years and as of late have had major speed problems; speed as low as 32kps; I'm told it is do to the age of the cable; 30+ years old and having been put on a Network Router with heavy users; gamers. I have just ordered U-verse and have been told I will not have the same problems since it is Fiber and then copy the last 2000 feed; still the same old cable; Am I going to have the same problems? I have Elite DSL, and am sticking for 6M at least for now. I have been telecom for over 40 years in COEI and have installed DSL CO switches as well as Verizon(GTE) Fios and that is fast since it is glass until the last 50 feet. -- The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today? (c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc., A Rot in Hell. Co.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:04:10 GMT From: art.shapiro@unisys.com (Arthur Shapiro) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: I'm back Message-ID: <hftu2q$13r5$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com> And a "glad to see you back" from (primarily) a lurker! This might be a good time to ask if there's any update on poor Pat. Art ***** Moderator's Note ***** Thank you! Pat Townson is still living at the Regal Estates nursing home. You may reach him at 620-331-8789. Bill Horne Moderator
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 (7 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues