TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Jun 2005 03:51:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 255

Inside This Issue:                            Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Personal Data for 3.9 Million Lost in Transit (Monty Solomon)
    Apple Vows to Make Podcasting Easier (Monty Solomon)
    Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing (T. Sean Weintz)
    Cannot Cancel AT&T Service After Moving to Vonage (johnspilker@msn.com)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy  (John Levine)
    Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging? (Isaiah Beard)
    Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell (Steve Sobol)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Scott Dorsey)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites (Thor Lancelot Simon)
    Re: Coal, was From Our Archives, History of Standard Oil (Thor Simon)

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.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:22:43 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Personal Data for 3.9 Million Lost in Transit


By TOM ZELLER Jr.

In one of the largest breaches of data security to date,
CitiFinancial, the consumer finance subsidiary of Citigroup, announced
yesterday that a box of computer tapes containing information on 3.9
million customers was lost by United Parcel Service last month, while
in transit to a credit reporting agency.

Executives at Citigroup said the tapes were picked up by U.P.S. early
in May and had not been seen since.

The tapes contained names, addresses, Social Security numbers, 
account numbers, payment histories and other details on small 
personal loans made to millions of customers through CitiFinancial's 
network of more than 1,800 lending branches, or through retailers 
whose product financing was handled by CitiFinancial's retail 
services division.

The company said there was no indication that the tapes had been 
stolen or that any of the data in them had been compromised.

It was, however, the latest in a series of recent data-security
failures involving nearly every kind of institution that compiles
personal information -- ranging from data brokers like ChoicePoint and
LexisNexis to financial institutions like Bank of America and Wachovia
to the media giant Time Warner to universities like Boston College and
the University of California, Berkeley.

All these institutions have reported data breaches in the last five
months, affecting millions of individuals and spurring Congressional
hearings and numerous bills aimed at improving security in the
handling of sensitive consumer information. The fear is that Social
Security numbers, when combined with a consumer's name, address and
date of birth, can be used by thieves to open new lines of credit,
secure loans and otherwise steal someone's identity.

Whether the recently reported breaches indicate an epidemic of data
loss is unclear. Many privacy and security advocates have suggested
that a California law, requiring that consumers be notified of data
security breaches, has led to more confessions of data losses and
increased awareness of a longstanding problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/business/07data.html?ex=1275796800&en=c99c395251d1dec5&ei=5090


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll tell you the latest thing the
phishers are doing: A phisher dressed up like a UPS delivery man
or Federal Express person shows up at the company to get the daily
shipment to the credit bureaus (yes, it is a _daily_ transfer). The
person of course has no connection to the delivery service; he just
does what is called 'reverse engineering' or 'social engineering' on
the bank employees responsible for making the transfer of the tapes.

A variation on this happened a number of years ago when two guys
dressed as postal employees showed up at the Amoco Oil Company
credit card office in the (presumably secure) area where new plastics
were issued and mailed out to new customers. Because Amoco had been
tipped off the day before that this was going to happen, they were
able to prevent it with FBI guys on hand to arrest the pair who were
posing as postal workers coming to get the daily output of fresh
cards to go in the mail. I am surprised the phishers have not thought
of this before: rather than one by one trying to trick information 
out of people, instead trick the relative handful of people in 
charge of data transfer between bank and credit bureau.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:33:21 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Apple Vows to Make Podcasting Easier


By RACHEL KONRAD AP Technology Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Apple Computer Inc. CEO Steve Jobs called
podcasting "the hottest thing going in radio" on Monday and promised
to make it easier for audiophiles to create and distribute the digital
recordings.

Amateur and professional disk jockeys have established more than 8,000
podcasts, downloadable audio files that focus on everything from
electronic gadgets to movies and astronomy. They can be played on
computers or digital music players, such as Apple's popular iPod.

Business Week, Forbes, Disney and Sirius have podcasts, as do hundreds
of individuals including wine aficionados, baseball fans and political
junkies.

Productions range from stream-of-consciousness rants to slick shows
and, unlike conventional radio broadcasts, podcasts have no time
limits, deadlines or government oversight.

At a technology conference on Monday, Jobs previewed iTunes version
4.9. The software allows users to click on and subscribe to different
podcasts, then automatically delivers the shows to any connected iPod
_ far less cumbersome than the third-party applications many listeners
now need.

The newest iTunes will include a directory of podcasts, and creators
will be able to register their shows with Apple's iTunes Music Store.

      - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=49684276

------------------------------

From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Valued Added Caller ID Spoofing
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:43:04 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Caller ID spoofing services being available to the general public were
bad enough.

This service not only spoofs caller ID, it allows you to set up
automated harrassment! You pick pre-recorded sound bites to play, and
you can set it up to call someone repeatedly.

http://www.tricktel.com

------------------------------

From: johnspilker@msn.com
Subject: Cannot Cancel My AT&T Service After Moving to Vonage
Date: 7 Jun 2005 18:46:25 -0700


Anyone know how I can get AT&T to cancel long distance service to my
home number? We moved our home number to Vonage from Qwest with AT&T
long distance service.

Qwest cancelled the service promptly and even gave us a refund. AT&T
refuses to cancel the long distance service. They maintain the
cancellation must be done through Qwest. Qwest says the notification
has been sent to AT&T. A Qwest representative said she had heard of
several instances where AT&T will not cancel long distance service of
numbers moved over to VOIP.

Any ideas?

Thanks.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this a situation where AT&T is
charging you some monthly fee for 'handling' your account? If not,
and you are just billed for calls you actually make then it does
not matter. Just ignore it; let them call you a 'customer' if they
wish, since there are no calls being made via AT&T, the account
will always have a zero balance. Now if AT&T is charging some sort
of monthly fee, then a letter sent registered to the company should
help. For example, one side of SBC _still_ persists in referring to
me as a 'customer' while another part of the company is trying to
win me back (with all sorts of outrageous deals these days, free
service, etc).  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:40:56 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


NOTvalid@XmasNYC.Info wrote:

> Go to GoDaddy.com on Wednesday evening,
> they set up a chat room to go along with their streaming radio show.

> You can even call up an 800 number to get on "air" I think.

I'm going to try pinging GoDaddy founder Bob Parsons first. He's
supposed to be really good about responding to email.


JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 2005 19:06:24 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Why There Are Questions About GoDaddy 
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> But registrars can't be expected to filter prospective registrants
> to remove potential, or even actual, spammers.

It would be more accurate to say that registrars aren't willing to
filter actual spammers since that would cost money and they're more
interested in short term revenue than the long term good of the
Internet.

For years I've been saying that the Internet biz needs a credit bureau
so that when people try to sing up, it's possible to find out if
they've been booted off before for nonpayment, misbehavior, and other
problems.  Everyone says it's a great idea, but so far not great
enough to do it.

R's,

John


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if anyone has considered a
class action suit (netters versus registrars) on the theory that if
the registrars had not given safe harbor to those cretins they 
would have had no way to spam the world. I think the idea of a 
'credit bureau' approach is a good one. Every person or company which
applies for an IP address or name space in a domain has to have their
request put up for public discussion/approval. You want to register an
IP address, and find a registrar willing to accept you, then
regardless of which registrar you wish to use, your application is
made public to the net, such as requesting an FCC license. After some
period of time -- let's say 60 days -- if there are no serious
complaints about you, your 'license' (or IP address or name space) is 
granted. PAT]

------------------------------

From: Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Text Messaging?
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:07:20 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Joseph wrote:

>> That's interesting. Both Verizon and Sprint have disabled SMS
>> completely when I requested it. Why can't T-Mobile?

> Maybe it has to do with the way GSM works.  You didn't mention AT&T
> Wireless or Cingular.  SMS is part of the GSM spec.  I don't know if
> that's the case with CDMA.

It is, but can be inhibited if need be.  I have to say, SMS seems to
be GSM's achilles' heel.  A lot of signalling functions on GSM appear
to be handled by thinly vieled SMS messages, stuff that would be
handled on a more formal level in CDMA through the paging channel.
I'm willing to bet that T-Mobile is unwilling to fully disable SMS on
an account because in many markets, they still use it for voicemail
and other notifications.


E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

------------------------------

From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell System
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:46:53 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com


Justin Time wrote:

> The AMOCO label has been gone from the Chicago area for several years.

> They're all BP now.

> And every time I see a BP station I think back to Dick Martin and "You
> bet your bippee!"

When I used to work at a BP station I jokingly called them the Big
Prices Oil Company.

The amusing and highly ironic thing about my nickname is that BP
bought Atlantic Richfield in 2000. ARCO's stations are positioned as
price leaders.  In fact, only Valero (another discount brand, owned by
Diamond Shamrock) matches BP's prices at the ARCO stations in this
area. Chevron is far and away the most expensive gas station chain in
SoCal. Often the local Chevron is 10-15c/gal more expensive than a
nearby ARCO.


JustThe.net - Steve Sobol / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Coming to you from Southern California's High Desert, where the
temperatures are as high as the gas prices! / 888.480.4NET (4638)

"Life's like an hourglass glued to the table"   --Anna Nalick, "Breathe"

------------------------------

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:45:27 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.254.10@telecom-digest.org>,
 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Robert Bonomi wrote:

>>> Sorry, but I know too many government agencies that have strict rules
>>> on what their employees may say using any government equipment, and
>>> AFAIK these rules are perfectly legal and upheld.

>> Generally, true, *today*.  There is a _long_ history of attempts at
>> such rules that have been held partially or wholly void, necessitating
>> re-writes.

> Until around 1975 government employees were under many restrictions.
> There was a law, the Hatch Act, that prohibited politicking by
> government employees. 

Don't tell anybody, but the Hatch Act is *still* on the books.

Significantly modified, for federal (and D.C.) employess _only_), in
1993.

Don't take my word for it -- see <http://www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm>

> That made sense in the idea it was to avoid
> government employees serving as patronage or beholden to elected
> officials for their jobs.  Until that time Federal employees had to
> sign off that they weren't Communists.

Pssst!  Many, if not all, federal agency employees are *still*
required to sign loyalty oaths.  While they don't mention the
Communist Party by name (the Supreme Court threw that out several
times in the 1950's and 1960's) the employ does swear that he 'is not,
and will not become' a mamber of any organization dedicated to the
overhtrow of the United States Government.  Many states require it as
well -- Calif, Okla, Fla, Arizona, Lousiania, Georgia, just to mention
a few.

> They didn't even want to see bumper stickers on cars in employee
> parking lots.  They wanted the appearance of strict neutrality.

> The laws today are different.  There certainly does remain some
> restrictions within the workplace.

Oh, lets see.

*NO* federal (or District of Columbia) employee may:

 -- be a candidate for public office in partisan elections
 -- engage in political activity while:
     + on duty
     + in a government office
     + wearing an official uniform
     + using a government vehicle
 -- wear partisan political buttons on duty

In addition, employees in 'select' departments/agencies/etc, may not: 
 -- campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan 
    elections
 -- make campaign speeches
 -- collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising 
    functions
 -- distribute campaign material in partisan elections
 -- organize or manage political rallies or meetings
 -- hold office in political clubs or parties
 -- circulate nominating petitions
 -- work to register voters for one party only
 -- wear political buttons at work

Note that for those 'select' employes that for all but the last item,
those restrictions apply to on AND _off_the_job_ activities.

The Hatch Act restrictions for State-level employees of agencies that
get Federal funding are somewhat more restrictive than the first set
of Federal restrictions above.

>> Government-as-employer is a _very_ complex legal situation. There is a
>> difficult balancing act between exercise of 'rights' _as_employer_ and
>> infringing on the 'civil rights' of the employee.

>> The body of law regarding what is allowable/acceptable in a government
>> work-place is significantly different that what is allowable/
>> acceptable in a private employer's workplace.

> There is substantial variety among government employers and private
> employers.  But I am not aware of "significant" differences between
> public and private as to day-to-day workplace activity.  (There may be
> differences in hiring and firing procedures on account of civil
> service, but some unionized private companies aren't very different in
> that regard.

Ok, so you "don't know what you don't know".

Just one example:

In private industry, and employer can allow use of company property
for non-work activities by employees -- e.g. using the copy machine to
run off flyeres for a local club activity.

In a federal government agency, if an employee does that it they are
comitting a *crime* -- one with _prison time_ attached to it.  Whether
or not they have the 'ok' of their supervisor.  18 USC 641
Incidentally, that same statute can be used to prosecute those who
send unwanted commercial solication (aka "spam") e-mails to fed
government mail-servers.

Then see above, regarding "Hatch Act" restrictions on political
activity.  If a Federal employee violates any of those rules, and the
review board finds that the violation does *not* merit their getting
fired, they lose a month's pay, guaranteed. Those are the _only_ two
penalties allowed -- to be fired or 'fined' a month's pay.

At the State/local level, if the agency does not fire the violator,
they must give back Fed Funding to the tune of _two_years_ worth of
the funding for that violator's salary, or lose *all* future funding.

>>> Sorry, but rules do exist prohibiting "specific things" in government
>>> and in schools.

>> Would you care to itemize the 'saying specific things' forbidden by
>> those rules?

> Among other things:

> 1) No pornography.

Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement.
Not a 'speech' issue.

> 2) Illegal pornography will be turned over to the police.

Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement.
Not a 'speech' issue.

> 3) No harassment (per sexual harassment standards).

That one is, *peripherally*, a speech issue.  HOWEVER, case law holds
that 'pattern and manner of behavior' is _much_ more of a determining
factor than the words used.  "Go suck a fag", or "what time shall I
knock you up?", for example, are not necessarily sexually related.

Harrassment is much more about _how_ a thing is said, than *what* is
said.

> 4) No non-work related material (doesn't apply in the library).

Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement.
Not a 'speech' issue.

> 5) No release of private or restricted information.

*NOT* a 'speech' issue -- although it has the superficial appearance of
being speech related.

> 6) Compliance with policy on inter-dept communications (doesn't
> apply in the library).

Whatever _that_ means.  Is it "If you're going to speak to another
department, this is how it shall be done?"  Or '_you_ are not allow to
ask this other department to do things -- the request must come from
your boss?" Or what?

This is probably a restriction on _how_ things are to be said, as
distinct from _what_ may be said.

> 7) Compliance with various technical rules to protect system
> integrity.

Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement.
Not a 'speech' issue.

Final score: 0.25 out of 7

>> That aside, Because something _is_ publicly funded, and made available
>> to the public, 'at large', *does* mean that there are restrictions and
>> limitations that the government can exercise over what 'the public'
>> can do on/with that 'something'.

> There are restrictions on EVERYTHING in this world.  A building has to
> comply with zoning and fire codes.  A private building open to the
> public (ie a store or restaurant) must comply with further
> regulations.

"So what?" applies.  The fact that some kinds of restrictions _are_
allowed does not disprove a claim that other kinds of restrictions are
*NOT* allowed.

I didn't dispute that some kinds of restrictions are allowed.

I do claim that governmental activities are prohibited from engaging
in *some* kinds of restrictions.

> None the less, within the law, owners of property, BOTH government or
> private, may enact their own rules of conduct and procedure within
> their properties.  Years ago (before the laws), a governmentn director
> banned smoking in his dept, for example.  Certain attire may be
> required, for example.

Again, "so what?"   

Some kinds of governmental restrictions are allowed.  Some are *NOT*.

I can cite a Supreme Court ruling expressly invalidating a
governmental unit 'dress code' item that forbade the wearing of
certain items of apparel.

An organization in 'private industry' would have had *NO* problem
enforcing that particular dress-code item..

> Indeed, in some cases government employees have more restrictions than
> private employees, such as poll workers and cops showing neutrality
> while on duty during an election.

Again, "so what?"

Evidence of the existance of some kinds of restrictions is neither
'evidence against", nor "disproof of", a claim that some kinds of
restrictions are proscribed.

[ restoring context that the prior poster "conveniently" forgot to include ]

|| There is no such thing as unlimited free speech.  Try screaming a
|| tirade at your neighbor and you'll get a summons for disorderly
|| conduct.  There are many examples.

>> Which has nothing to do with 'free speech', in point of fact.  The
>> summons is for _how_ you did things, not _what_ you said.

> It has EVERYTHING to do with what is SAID.

Wrong.

Disproof by counter-example.  If you said _exactly_ the same words to
that neighbor, in a calm and reasoned tone of voice, you will *NOT*
get a summons for 'disorderly conduct'.

*HOW* you said those things is what gets the summons for "disorderly
CONDUCT".  It is the _conduect_ that is the problem, not the language.

> If I threaten to kill you,
> you can have me arrested and convicted for making threats. 

You're obviously ignorant of the existing 'case law' on *that* point.
With the exception of a remark of that nature about the President of
the United States, one cannot be charged/convicted *just* for making
such a remark.

The *words* "I'm going to kill you", or "I could kill you", or similar
are _not_ illegal to say.  They can be said in many ways that do *not*
constitute a 'threat'.  Saying the words is not forbidden by any law.
Making a (believable) _threat_, is a different matter, *regardless* of
the words used.  Saying _exactly_ the same words, in a manner and/or
context that does not constitute a threat is *not* illegal

I, personally, have shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- one of the
'textbook' examples of 'prohibited' speech.  Strangely enough, the two
cops standing less than 15 feet away from me, did *absolutely*
nothing.  Can you guess why?

> Other statements can result in conviction for disorderly conduct

FALSE TO FACT.  No statement, _in_and_of_itself_, constitutes
disorderly conduct.  The "style", and "manner", in which the statement
was made is what constutes the 'conduct' that is objectionable.

> harassment.

The 'words' do not constitute harassment.  The *pattern*of*behavior* does.

> If I libel or slander you, you can sue me for damages.

Which is *UTTERLY* irrelevant to 1st Amendment rights, and
restrictions on *governmental* prohibitions on speech.  The
_government_ does *not* prohibit your saying libelous/slanderous
things. The -government- does *not* prescribe any specific penalties
for those actions.

Anyway, not bad for a strawman argument.

Very nice 'selective editing' --  too bad you got caught at it.

>> Regulating/restricting the _content_ of speech has very high barriers
>> to overcome.
>> Regulating/restricting the _form_ of speech faces far, _far_ lower
>> barriers.

> The barriers are not as high as you think.

The court record confirms that the barriers are there.  Cases that
have gone to the Supreme Court, and the attempted governmental
prohibition on a particular form of speech has been held to be "not
permissible".

Just *try* to find a case where a _private_industry_ prohibition has
been held invalid. On 1st Amend. grounds.

> Further, many argue (I don't quite agree) that regulating the form of
> speech effectively limits the content of speech. 

What 'many argue' is not compelling law.  <grin>

That aside, the question *is* a thorny one.  A great deal depends on
the 'availability' of _alternate_ forms of speech.

It is long-standing policy that regulation of 'time, place, and
manneer' of speech _is_ allowable where there is a bona-fide public
interest being served.  Regulation of the "content" of speech reguire
a "compelling" public interest, and such regulation must be drawn 'as
narrowly as practical' to accomplish the stated goal.

> For instance, some
> demand that free speech be allowed in shopping malls (which are
> private property) because the malls are the "new Main Street". Courts
> have been mixed on that. 

Not very mixed, at least at the Federal level. Unless the mall
operator is "acting in the role of government", for which there are an
articulated set of tests, the mall *is* private property and the
operator is free to restrict access as they see fit. It is possble
that State law may impose different limits, on a local basis.

> Many advocates argue that standing on a
> corner handing out leaflets (a very classic form of free speech) has
> so little impact that they should be allowed stronger forms of speech.

Which they have _ready_ access to.  Newspaper ads, radio & TV
commericals.  But, they don't have the _money_ for that.  So they
think they deserve 'special treatment'.  *sigh*

------------------------------

From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 7 Jun 2005 20:11:20 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)


Thomas A. Horsley <tom.horsley@att.net> wrote:

> I was in Grady Elementary school in Tampa many long decades ago.  The
> school went through 6th grade, no higher grades around.  I was also in
> 6th grade, highest grade taught at the school.  I tried to check out a
> Sherlock Holmes book from the library, and the librarian wouldn't let
> me because it was "too hard" for a 6th grader (not true, by the way).

> What was it doing in the library if 6th graders shouldn't be reading
> it?  More important, why would a librarian object to a kid attempting
> a little brain stretching even if it was too hard?

I went to two high schools.  My first high school had an enormous
library, with a librarian who would not only point students at books
but would get books from the nearby college library for them when
needed.  And journal articles.  They had the whole UN Atoms for Peace
series, which was my introduction to nuclear physics.  They had a
whole section of fine electronics books that was better than some
college libraries I have seen.  Anybody in the school, even a
first-grader, could check these out.

Then my parents moved, and I went to a different high school for my
past two years.  The librarian there was a Mrs. Ianuzzi, and talking
with her, she basically told me that she considered her job to be
protecting the books from students.  She considered herself a saviour
in the wilderness of book-destroying children who might want to read
books.  (Also, the library was dreadful ... my father actually owned
more volumes of fiction than the library did and I did not hesitate to
point this out).

> Thus began my lifelong love affair with bookstores and shunning of
> libraries (perhaps the real story behind the librarian's actions
> involved some kind of guerilla marketing campaign by bookstores to
> turn kids off of libraries while they are young and impressionable
> :-). 

This is a sad thing.  Some of my best times were spent in libraries.
I sort of maybe lost my virginity in one of them, even.  And I think
the job of the librarian is a very important one, because bad
librarians can scar children forever.

--scott

"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: 7 Jun 2005 13:26:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did the court actually put the choir
> out of business? It sounds to me like it did.

Yes.  They were ordered shut down.

> Did the choir try going the 'free association' direction as the one
> did in Chicago? That is to say, pick up their music and other
> belongings (and since it was after school hours) simply skip the
> premises to do their thing?

That I don't know.  If they formed as an independent group they
shouldn't have had any trouble.  However, this particular school was a
city-wide magnet school so it would've been hard to find a good
meeting location convenient to all.

What bothered many people was that the school's supposedly policy was
"open use".  Somehow the school was "promoting religion" even though
the staff person involved was a volunteer.

I guess if school kids sit on the steps and sing rap songs with nasty
lyrics of rape and violence that's perfectly ok and free speech, but
if they sing religious songs life as we know it will come to an end.
That hypocrisy bothered a lot of people.

IMHO, this is similar to the "Ten Commandments" issue -- with people
demanding plagues of them be removed from court houses.  Frankly, I
would not build a courthouse with one today.  But in the 1920s, when
these things were built, it was considered appropriate and dignified
decoration.  It bothers me that suddenly 80 year old stuff is deemed
religious and has to come out.

IMHO arguing against such plaques and volunteer choirs kills public
support for such activist groups and has undesirable political
consequences.  People will be tolerant only to a point of radical
political views, then they will dig in their heels and fight hard.
Activists need to pick their battles better.

------------------------------

From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 05:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com


In article <telecom24.254.9@telecom-digest.org>,
Gary Novosielski  <gpn@suespammers.org> wrote:

> Fred Atkinson wrote:

>> Sorry to come down on you this hard, but limiting student access to
>> information simply because we think they don't 'need' access to it is
>> a pretty short sighted opinion for an educator to take.

> You're presuming that it's educators who are in favor of blocking
> technology, but I think that's jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

As both an educator and a student, I am, in fact, in favor of
"blocking technology".  The last thing I need is students distracted
by more crap on their laptops while I'm lecturing -- and the last
thing I need, as a student, is more distraction.  I'm always happy, in
either role. when I walk into a classroom, turn on my laptop, and
discover that there is no wireless network connectivity in that
particular room.


Thor Lancelot Simon	                            tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
 to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."  - Noam Chomsky

------------------------------

From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: Coal, was From our Archives: History of Standard Oil and Bell
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 06:41:51 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd personally like to see more wide-
> spread research/development/use of solar power, especially for things
> like heating our homes in the winter. Oops, I forgot to include the
> mantra from the petroleum industry on this: "Solar power is not
> practical nor efficient."  PAT]

For what it's worth, many estimates are that it takes more energy to
fuse silica to make solar panels than will be output by those panels
as electricity over their expected service lifetimes, at sea level in
most temperate climes.

However, what that analysis does ignore is that you cannot get more
local -- that is, less transmission loss -- than the energy generation
and consumption from the panels in the typical intertie solar setup.

So, if the energy to make the panels is generated in, at least, a not
terribly dirty way, and the panels aren't made far from where that
power is generated, due to transmission losses solar panels in many
locations are a serious net win.


Thor Lancelot Simon                                 tls@rek.tjls.com

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
 to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem."  - Noam Chomsky

------------------------------


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.feedroll.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecom

*************************************************************************
*   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 #255
******************************