From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Mar 18 01:03:55 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i2I63tX04461; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:03:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:03:55 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200403180603.i2I63tX04461@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #128 TELECOM Digest Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:04:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 128 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Finally, Apple Speaks to the Blind (Monty Solomon) Welcome to the 'New' Web, Same as the 'old' Web (Monty Solomon) EFFector 17.9: California Bills Backed by Hollywood Attack (M Solomon) The Next Picture Messaging Boom (Eric Friedebach) Busch Gardens Callers Get 'Pleasure Zone' (Eric Friedebach) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu) Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet (Eric) Seeking Any Advice on 5.8 GHZ Phones (Dolchas) Re: Thanks For the Norvergence Red Flags! (Richard Ramirez) 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 is 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:19:50 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Finally, Apple Speaks to the Blind BYTE OF THE APPLE By Alex Salkever It's building innovative screen-reading technology into OS X. That's essential for the visually impaired -- and a smart business move. With its brash marketing campaigns and big brand image, few would accuse Apple Computer (AAPL ) of being a silent company. But to the millions of Americans who are legally blind or seriously visually impaired Apple has seemed silent and uncaring because it has no screen-reader program of its own. And software maker ALVA Access Group decided in summer, 2003, to stop making the last such Mac-compatible program on the market. This leaves visually impaired Mac users without software that allows them to navigate a computer desktop and Web pages by vocalizing complex menu trees, cursor locations, and other key visual cues taken for granted by sighted users. Apple recognized that ALVA's decision elevated the situation to crisis proportions and scrambled to tackle the problem. This week at the 19th annual Technology & Persons with Disabilities Conference in Los Angeles -- the biggest assistive-technology confab in the country -- Jobs & Co. introduced a nifty tool to help the blind use Macs again. Apple calls this new technology "Spoken Interface." The basic concept is to vocalize and make audible everything that visually happens on a desktop, just like screen-reading software. http://businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040316_6454_tc056.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:23:34 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Welcome to the 'New' Web, same as the 'Old' Web By Christine Boese CNN Headline News (CNN) -- Do you remember the day you first surfed the Web, stretched out your arms over the vastness of cyberspace, teleported from site to site with an almost exhilarating power? Or alternately, sat waiting for "fat" pages to load? Well, hang on to your hats boys and girls, because your experience of the World Wide Web is about to change, possibly for the first time since Mosaic, one of the first graphical browsers, was unleashed in 1993 from Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. If I'm saying the Web is changing and that you'd better get on board or miss out, I'd better be prepared to back it up. I believe I can. In a previous column, (To Blog or not to Blog?), I wrote about how the blog movement is changing the Web by giving more people a voice online. But a parallel movement is also changing the online experience for ordinary surfers. The point of entry into this efficient and focused style of surfing does not involve search engines. Instead, many users, learning from bloggers, are setting aside their browsers at certain times to use news feed readers, sometimes called "news aggregators," instead. Try out the new on-ramp http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/03/15/new.web/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:08:59 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EFFector 17.9: California Bills Backed by Hollywood Attack EFFector Vol. 17, No. 9 March 17, 2004 donna@eff.org A Publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation ISSN 1062-9424 In the 281st Issue of EFFector: * California Bills Backed by Hollywood Attack Internet Privacy * EFF Releases "Monsters of Privacy" Animation Feature * FCC Getting Fuzzy on Digital Television * Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT - Section 220 * EFF Seeks Webmaster Who Wants to Make a Difference * Deep Links (17): Florida as the Next Florida * Staff Calendar: 03.19.04 - Fred von Lohmann speaks at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Shari Steele debates Bruce Taylor at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA * Administrivia http://www.eff.org/effector/17/9.php ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: The Next Picture Messaging Boom Date: 17 Mar 2004 14:01:54 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Penelope Patsuris, 03.16.04, Forbes.com NEW YORK - Camera phones may be popular, but one of that technology's biggest market opportunities has yet to become a reality: users swapping snapshots between different wireless carriers. It's not only the carriers that stand to profit from this development, but also the companies that supply the products and services that will make such interoperability possible. By the end of 2004, consumers will have sent 3.8 billion multimedia messages, which are mostly photographs, according to research outfit IDC. That's astounding considering that camera phones didn't even hit the U.S. market in a meaningful way until 2003, and that U.S. users still can't send pictures to phones on different networks such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T Wireless. For the most part, people are either exchanging pictures in-network or are sending them to e-mail addresses where friends and family can see the photos online. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2004/03/16/cx_pp_0316picturemessaging.html Eric Friedebach /Tonight's Skywarn training cancelled due to ... weather?/ ------------------------------ From: friedebach@yahoo.com (Eric Friedebach) Subject: Busch Gardens Callers Get 'Pleasure Zone' Date: 17 Mar 2004 15:43:04 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com March 17, 2004, Associated Press TAMPA, Fla. - Busch Gardens may be a lot of fun, but it's not the "Pleasure Zone." The theme park listed the wrong number on marketing fliers sent to former holders of its discount Fun Card last week. Instead of reaching Busch Gardens, callers got a recorded sex line with a woman welcoming them to the "Pleasure Zone." http://www.startribune.com/stories/670/4668919.html Eric Friedebach /Tonight's Skywarn training cancelled due to... weather?/ ------------------------------ From: werner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:26:08 UTC Organization: Hoeland >> No great conspiracy. Just extending the current rules, with all of >> the current protections, to digital communications. Wireline and >> wireless phone companies have to provide the means to put legal >> wiretaps on their facilities under court orders. >> Why should ISPs and VoIP phone companies be exempt? > You'd have felt right at home in Germany during Hitler's time, > wouldn't you. tssss, that's not fair commentary to what was stated. Why, indeed, should VoIP and ISP communication providers not be held to the same (recognized/needed) standards? I'm surprised that the moderator did not declare the discussion "moot" -- i.e. *ended* at this point ... (as you had *clearly* "asked for it" -- by USEnet standards, at least, by making reference to the H-person... ... after which ... PAT opines (something which would be much *better* done in a separate followup article, btw, and in my opinion ... one moderator to another ... as it is unfair and simply not right to mix 'moderator duties' with 'discussion participation' in such a manner -- for discussion purposes a moderator should make an extra effort to appear *equal* to the rest, keep it possible that one can search and find his opinion simply by keying on the poster's name... and this is *NOT* to be construed as as "bashing the moderator" -- as well know to appreciate the fine effort that he makes in most everything else -- rather than as demanding that certain, to me *obvious* standards deserve to be promoted, even demanded by "the people" ... :) > ... your assertion that a judge's signature on a warrant were difficult > to obtain (false) shows you to be very naive. Also a completely inappropriate, undeserved tear down of the contributing poster. I'm astounded by that tone, choice of word. I'm as sceptical about what's going on as the next guy, but the poster did not deserve to be called on the carpet "like that", IMO. > Judges tend to do whatever their puppet-masters, police and > prosecutors, tell them to do. It takes absolutely no effort to > obtain a warrant at all. That's simply not true -- it does take *some* effort ... > in actual practice they don't refuse the request. Eliminating it > would simply bring things more in line with how they actually are. > Either that, or supply each prosecutor with a rubber stamp of the > judge's signature. ... but, what's much, much more important, it forces prosecutor and police to list (and date-stamp) what's claimed as reasons for the action, rather than allowing to invent (and/or rephrase) them *afterwards* (when being called on the carpet for it), using what was learned (or planted) as a-priori justification ... That said, it's not the system that's broken but rather it is being stressed (as are the people participating in it) to the breaking point by *circumstances* ... I don't know how to make it fail-safe or significantly improve it, not with what we have as *material* to do it with... mainly *people* that are the product of our system, culture, society ... :( /"\ ASCII... ._. ||"We the sheeple...Don't Mess With Penguins!" \ / on Usenet /v\ || OPT-OUT is *E*V*I*L* X ANYTHING ELSE /( )\ || I KILL-file top-posters / ignore posts with / \ IS BLOAT !! ^^ ^^ || only quoted text in the first screen... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pleased to make your aquaintence, Mr. Werner (? I assume ?) I guess I am not familiar with the newsgroup you moderate, which one is it? One of the reasons I often times will intersperse my notes with the Digest (usually at the bottom of a message but now and then at the top if there may be some confusion in the use of the message to start with) is because although we do have 'discussion' here, quite often the writer asks a question (simple to me, very difficult to them in many cases) and since telephony is sort of my forte, often times my answer is all they need for whatever they are working on. For example in recent days there have been questions here about how to make a phone 'one way inbound only', how to restrict dialed calls, how to investigate and deal with billing fraud, etc. Since I do not always know what the person is going to say or inquire about prior to printing an issue of the Digest, it makes better sense to me to simply supply the answer when the question is presented. I suppose I could print their question, then when the next issue is done up a few hours later publish an answer. That would require the correspondent to wait several more hours or perhaps another day to get an answer. Quite honestly, in many instances the first time I see the person's question or comment is when I am editing it here. Other than a simple skeleton used in formatting the Digest, most of it is all manual editing from issue to issue. Ah, but you were not speaking about the technical, yet mostly elementary technical questions on phones, which is about all I know for sure. You were addressing the 'other topics' which come up here from time to time, I think, and wondering why I was getting involved in those as a 'moderator' rather than another 'reader'. All I can say is its just the way I have always done it. Now to address some of your statements herein: You questioned my use of phraseolgy including the word 'naive'. Isn't it rather naive to think, or say, or publish the thought that American government and jurisprudence is done like the high school civics text books say, instead of how it really is in most places, such as Chicago, Illinois? Although I was born in a small rural town in s.e. Kansas in 1942, and fled back here as though my life depended on it, (which it mostly did) in the late 1990's, the middle part of my life (forty some years) was spent in that great example of good government and politics and police activity called 'Chicago, Illinois'. I saw what was originally 1940-50 era) a somewhat decent place to live turn into a complete hell-hole by the early 1990's. A town where 42 of the 50 members of the City Council were in fact convicted felons. A town where 27 of the Circuit Court judges were sent at various times to prison and then disbarred (only because the law requires same; not because the mayor or the council people who had them in office to start with wanted it to happen that way). A town where there were two *major* 'race riots' in my history (1968's assassination of MLK; and later the same year the Democratic political convention.) A town which beat Boston by twenty years with a priest/child sex scandal. ('ours' was in 1981-83 when almost a hundred priests were involved.) A town where public transportation is quickly becoming a total shambles (why do you think the CTA is laughingly referred to as the *C*hicago *T*ransist *A*trocity) when over a hundred subway fare collectors between them stole over *six million dollars* in fares, but kept their patronage-provided jobs until even Mayor Daley or their workers union could not protect them any longer. A town where public housing is such a shambles the federal government placed the CHA (*C*hicago *H*ousing *A*trocity) in recievership. A town where judges are beholden to prosecutors and prosecutors and judges are often times beholden to police officers who caught them in varying degrees of hanky panky, and all of them, judges, prosecutors and politicians alike are beholden to the Chicago Tribune, a 160 year old newspaper with a *massive* archives of pictures and unpublished stories, many of which are *not* complimentary at all and only get used when the Tribune gets an urge to sodomize one or more politicians; police officers, e.g. the 'prosecutorial misconduct' series of stories the Tribune ran in 1998 and a few prosecutors and police officers were sent off to join their judge buddies in prison. A town where Bush/Ashcroft and their Patriot Act would have nothing on Chicago Police who for forty years at least have had a 'Red Squad' to spy on citizens, and a 'Morals Squad' to hassle gay guys left and right. So, Mr. Werner, you were shocked by my phraseology 'naive' to say getting a search warrant by 'going through channels' was in the same calibre as Jimmy Stewart standing up in the House of Representatives to introduce a bill for a children's playground (his movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" 1940 by Columbia Pictures). Mr. Werner, that is NOT how it happens, and you are just as naive as the original writer if you think so. This has already gone on way too long, and I am in need of going to vomit once again. For your other questions, please contact me after the show -- in email -- to talk more if you wish. PAT] ------------------------------ From: egusenet@verizon.net (Eric) Subject: Re: President Bush Wants to Bug the Internet Date: 17 Mar 2004 21:19:51 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com > Those who are not happy with the stranglehold the two major parties > have on our political system and wish to vote for candidates they > prefer instead of choosing the lesser of two evils should push for the > adoption of "Instant Runoff Voting". For those who are interested, there are actually far better methods the IRV and I would encourage you to check out: http://electionmethods.org/ http://approvalvoting.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~seppley/ To learn more about the problems with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), you can check out: http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm http://www.condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml http://tinyurl.com/lyzd ------------------------------ From: dncmullin@yahoo.com (Dolchas) Subject: Seeking any Advice on 5.8 GHZ Phones Date: 17 Mar 2004 18:35:00 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Greetings all! I have a Uniden 900mz cordless phone that I always thought was pretty mediocre (and the battery holds almost no charge nowadays), so I figured I'd upgrade to a 2.4 ghz Panasonic that I saw at Costco for a good price. The nice thing about this package is that it came with three handsets and the promise of an intercom function; this intercom function is a key feature for me because I live in a three story house and am tired of yelling across floors. When I got the 2.4 ghz system home, I found it interfered with my Lorex transmitter device that sends signals from one TV to another on 2.4 ghz frequency. So I figured maybe I'll try moving up to a 5.8 ghz system, but as I started to research things, I read that: (a) Some (many? all?) 5.8 ghz systems transmit partly on 2.4 ghz and partly on 5.8 ghz, in which case I would still expect interference;and (b) higher frequency units are more likely to be obstructed by objects as opposed to lower freq units like my 9n00 mz units. I have to be able go through walls and floors whilst communicating between handset and base, and handset to handset (for the intercom function) -- will I have problems with this at 5.8 ghz? Costco has a good price on a Uniden 5.8 ghz phone which also has three handsets (I am not presently confident about whether or not it has the intercom function). Does anyone know if this Uniden phone utilizes 2.4 ghz freqs in any way? Also, does anyone know if, like the Panasonic, it has a handset-to-handset interocom function? Am I likely to have problems communicating through floors and walls with a 5.8 ghz system? How is Uniden as a brand? Should I just stay in the 20th century rather than leap into the 21st? If so, are there any decent 900 mz cordless phone systems with three handsets and an intercom feature? Any recommendations at all are much appreciated! Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:56:24 PST From: Richard Ramirez Subject: Re: Thanks For the Norvergence Red Flags! Justin Time, A.K.A. Rodgers Platt wrote: > "I work in a position where I am not the decision maker, I cannot sign > documents committing money, time or resources, so, according to your > class in Sales 101 I am not worth speaking to." -That's right. Now please open the Administrative Assistant's First Aid Kit, and apply a band aid to your ego. ------------------------------ 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) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #128 ******************************