From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jul 17 02:50:49 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.3) id i6H6omI24870; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:50:49 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200407170650.i6H6omI24870@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 #337 TELECOM Digest Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:50:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 337 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Daniel W. Johnson) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Robert Bonomi) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Daniel W. Johnson) Re: Power of the Net in Next Election (Robert Bonomi) Re: Norvergence Question (Steven J Sobol) Re: Norvergence Question (Robert Bonomi) Norvergence Contract (martial-longarm@comcast.net) Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts (Dave Garland) Re: Virtual PBX Competitors (John Bartley) Review: AirPort Express (Monty Solomon) Re: Payphone Ringer Troubleshooting (Tony P.) Re: Curly Telephone Receiver Cords Untangled (Charles Patterson) Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? (Ernie Klein) Share Day for July, 2004 (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:33:49 -0500 From: Daniel W. Johnson Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: Okay. > I believe the term of office is 4 years but any given person can > serve up to two complete terms maximum. Under Amendment XXII, a person can be elected to the office of the President no more than twice, or no more than once if they've served more than two years of someone else's term. http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html > I believe this came about at the urging of Republicans in 1950 when > President Truman was in office, because they (Republicans) were > quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting *four* terms in > office, even though he died about a year after getting elected the > fourth time. The amendment passed Congress in 1947, but it took about four years to be ratified after that. > Since normally any changes voted into law do not affect the > incumbent but only his successors, Truman could have theoretically > been around for many more years. So the Republicans got Eisenhower > in office in 1952. He was an enormously popular president and the > Republicans were sorry (in 1960) when he wound up having to leave > office also because of those rules they (Republicans) had passed > several years before. The amendment had an explicit exception for the term in which it took effect, but not for any later elections. Since Truman had served more than two years of Roosevelt's term and then been elected once, he was not eligible in 1952 and the Democrats didn't bother to nominate him. (If the amendment had taken a couple more years to be ratified and he had been re-elected in the meantime, the exception would have allowed him to finish the final term.) > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in > office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) > term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they > would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) > his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* > would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in > office, under the new rules. PAT] Since he served less than two years of Kennedy's term, the amendment would not have kept him from being elected a second time in 1968. Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:46:34 +0000 In article , Daniel W. Johnson wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: > Okay. >> I believe the term of office is 4 years but any given person can >> serve up to two complete terms maximum. > Any given person can be elected to the office no more than twice. Or > no more than once if they've filled the office for more than two years > of someone else's term. >http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html >> I believe this came about at the urging of Republicans in 1950 when >> President Truman was in office, because they (Republicans) were >> quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting *four* terms in office, >> even though he died about a year after getting elected the fourth >> time. > The twenty-second amendment passed Congress in 1947, although it did > take four more years to be ratified. >> Since normally any changes voted into law do not affect the >> incumbent but only his successors, Truman could have theoretically >> been around for many more years. > The amendment had an explicit exception for the term in which it took > effect, but not for any later elections. If it had taken a couple > more years to be ratified and allowed Truman to run and be elected in > 1952, he would have been able to finish out that term, but that would > have been it. >> So the Republicans got Eisenhower in office in 1952. He was an >> enormously popular president and the Republicans were sorry (in >> 1960) when he wound up having to leave office also because of those >> rules they (Republicans) had passed several years before. > Since Truman had served more than two years of Roosevelt's term and > then been elected to the office once, he was ineligible. This is why > the Democrats didn't nominate him in 1952. >> I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in >> office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) >> term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they >> would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) >> his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* >> would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in >> office, under the new rules. PAT] > No. He had served less than two years of Kennedy's term, so there was > nothing in the Constitution to keep him from actually being elected > twice. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And who sets up the rules for when the > conventions are held? I had heard the party seeking office always had > theirs first and the party in office always had theirs last. Is that > correct? It's bullsh*t. pure and simple. Each party chooses _when_ and *where* it will hold it's national convention. Due to the size of the event and the _length_ of time the facilities are needed, sites and dates are selected _several_ years in advance. almost assuredly at least 5 years in advance, probably closer to 10. > It is happening that way this time at least. So what? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:05:00 -0500 From: Daniel W. Johnson Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election In article , Linc Madison wrote: > That part is in the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951. > Technically, Truman could have run again, since the 22nd didn't apply > retroactively ("this article shall not apply to any person holding the > office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress"), > but Truman abided by the clear desire of the people and did not run in > 1952. My bad; I only noticed the second part of that sentence ("... and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.") Because of the seven-year deadline for the ratification of that amendment, the second part would seem to be rather difficult to apply to anyone other than the person holding the office of President when the article was proposed. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And who sets up the rules for when the > conventions are held? I had heard the party seeking office always had > theirs first and the party in office always had theirs last. Is that > correct? It is happening that way this time at least. The scheduling of the Republican National Convention is handled by the Republican Party. The scheduling of the Democratic National Convention is handled by the Democratic Party. The scheduling of the World Science Fiction Convention is handled by the World Science Fiction Society. And so on. I found a list at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781449.html , and it does look like the habit has been as you describe since 1932 (when the Republican Herbert Hoover was president but the Democratic convention was two weeks after the Republican convention). Actually, it looks like the Democratic Convention was after the Republican one each time from 1892 through 1952. > And those poor people who live in the condominium across the street > from Madison Square Garden are certainly getting pushed around by the > Republicans. A memorandum given to the residents of the apartment > building by the security officers for the convention have told them > they have to stay in their apartments for the entire convention except > being allowed to come and go from work and then *only* go outside with > proper ID and that they will not be allowed to carry in any packages > to their homes (i.e. groceries, etc) during the convention or for a > couple days before it begins, nor have any visitors in their homes > that week. See this week's Village Voice for the complete oppressive > memorandum from the secret security police to residents. I wonder why > the Republicans simply did not evict them all, drive them out of their > homes for good and get it over with. PAT] The memo I found at the Village Voice's website (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0428/memo.php) was somewhat less draconian than your description. Nothing about being allowed to come and go only for work, nothing about a restriction on carrying in packages, nothing about a prohibition on visitors. Lots of stuff that resembles the consequences of planned road work (or the Indianapolis 500). Is the harsher memo you describe somewhere else on that site? Daniel W. Johnson panoptes@iquest.net http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Power of the Net in Next Election From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:47:09 +0000 In article , > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I tend toward being libertarian > myself and wish they stood even a chance in hell of getting elected, > but that is so unrealistic in this country, where the Demopublicans > and the Republicrats prevail. I will be interested however in seeing > whether Pastor Soaries and his buddy Bush put their heads together > and decide 'because of the risk of terrorism' to have the election > in November called off, as per yesterday's CNN report and this week's > Newsweak Magazine. Not-so-clever use of "intellectually dishonest" language. You want people to belive that CNN and Newsweak (sic) reported that 'those people' are contemplating calling off the election. When, *IN*ACTUAL*FACT*, what is being reported is concern over the likelihood of terrorist activities coinciding with certain other events. WITH NOT ONE WORD about potentially 'calling off the election'. Of course, you've never let facts get your the way before, why start now? > Both of those news sources seem rather certain there will be some > terrorist activities at the conventions later this month and next > month. PAT] There is, quite simply, *NO*CHANCE* of the entire November elections being 'called off', or even 'postponed'. To move the date of the election for _FEDERAL_ offices (and *only* federal offices) a literal 'Act of Congress' would be required. Then there is the matter of the elections for _STATE_ and local offices. This would require additional, state-level, legislation in *each* of the 50 states. Where many of the legislatures have _already_ adjourned for the year. In any state where the legislature has adjourned, the Governor thereof would have to call the legislature back for a 'special session', _and_ the appropriate legislation would have to be introduced and passed, *AND* it would have to bear an 'effective date' in advance of the legal 'notice date' requirements for the current election. The last point introduces a whole raft of _additional_ complications -- in many states statutes _cannot_ take effect until the year after they are passed. And, of course, any attempt to move the date of the election past January 3 would introduce a constitutional crisis of (literally) unimaginable magnitude.. It is in the Constitution that the term of elected Federal officials expire on that date. *REGARDLESS* of whether a successor has been elected or not. Provision is made for the State Governor to 'appoint' someone to fill a vacancy in the House or Senate, *but*, in most cases, the governorship is _also_ vacant, for the same reason, at the same time. Ditto for the state legislatures. Legally you'd have *only* the 2/3 of the Senate who's terms were not of the current 'class'. *HOW* you then fill the vacant offices is _not_ a simple question. the missing US Senators can be appointed by a sitting state governor -- *if* there is one; his term _may_well_ have expired as well. To fill the U.S. House seats, a State _election_ is required -- called for by that state's Governor -- again, *IF* there is one. Filling gubernatorial and/or legislative vacancies at the _state_ level is even messier. And probably has to be dealt with _first_. So you *have* a Governor, to act on the Federal vacancies. > Charles Cryderman wrote: >> Bill Ranck placed before us: >>> "They have no legal standing to do so. I know they are asking to >>> have a law passed to enable them, but they would need a >>> Constitutional amendment to actually be able to do this. That >>> certainly isn't going to happen. I doubt that Congress will even >>> consider the idea in a serious way." >> Well Bill I got bad news for you. The Constitution has nothing in it >> about holding elections. There are laws made by Congress and which >> Congress has the power to change or void. But a Constitutional >> amendment is not necessary. The only thing the Constitution specifies >> is that the "electors" cast their votes. Nothing about the people >> voting. > Yes, *Congress* can set the date of the choosing, and of the voting of > the electors, not some appointed board or other group. I really can't > see Congress delegating that authority. There is also the clause > which says the term of the President and Vice President is 4 years. > So that sort of limits how much even Congress could delay an election >if they don't want to start a real Constituional crisis. > Technically, the states get to choose electors in any manner the > state's legislature wants. There is *no* requirement for a statewide > popular vote at all, and indeed until some time in the late 1800's > some state legislatures chose the electors for their state. The only > requirements the Constitution places on the process is that the choice > of electors must happen on the same day in all states, and that all > the electors for all the states have to make their choice on the same > day. > Bill Ranck > Blacksburg, Va. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Correct me if I am wrong: I believe > the term of office is 4 years but any given person can serve up to > two complete terms maximum. I believe this came about at the urging Your 'belief' bears no relation to the facts. > of Republicans in 1950 when President Truman was in office, because > they (Republicans) were quite annoyed at President Roosevelt getting > *four* terms in office, even though he died about a year after getting > elected the fourth time. Since normally any changes voted into law > do not affect the incumbent but only his successors, Truman could > have theoretically been around for many more years. FALSE TO FACT. such changes do not affect the _current_term_ of the sitting official. It can make it illegal for them to run for re-election _again_, even though they -first- were elected into office when such a restriction was not in effect. > So the Republicans > got Eisenhower in office in 1952. He was an enormously popular > president and the Republicans were sorry (in 1960) when he wound up > having to leave office also because of those rules they (Republicans) > had passed several years before. > I do believe in 1968 when President Johnson was finishing his term in > office, the Democrats were going to run him for a second (complete) > term (recall, he finished the final year of Kennedy's term) but they > would not let him do that, since if he *had* won (instead of Nixon) > his two complete terms *plus the extra time left over from Kennedy* > would have run him past the statuatory length of time allowed in > office, under the new rules. PAT] Again, your 'belief' bears no relation to the facts. Johnson *was* eligible to run, and could have served a full second term. He served less than 1/2 of Kennedy's term. As such he was eleigble for election _twice_. If he had served _more_ than 1/2 of a term, as an "unelected" president, then he would only have been eligible for election _once_. LBJ *chose* not to run in 1968 -- because his political advisors told him he had *zero* chance of winning. That it didn't matter *who* ran against him,_any_ opponent would defeat him in 'landslide' proprortions. 'Viet Nam' was a millstone of insurmountable proportions. He simply decided _not_ to be remembered for all posterity as a 'loser'. LBJ made a public announcement of his _decision_ *not* to run for re-election. I don't remember if the actual announcement was carried 'live' on TV, but clips from it were *all*over* the news broadcasts, at the time. He had face-saving mendacities about why he chose not to run for re-election, but the political fact was that he was un-electable. In article , Paul A Lee wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V23 #334, our esteemed Editor noted (in part): >> I believe the term of office is 4 years but any given person >> can serve up to two complete terms maximum. ... > From Amendment 22 of the U.S. Constitution: > "No person shall be elected to the office of the President > more than twice, and no person who has held the office of > President, or acted as President, for more than two years > of a term to which some other person was elected President > shall be elected to the office of President more than once." > [[.. munch ..]] > Rereading Amendment 22 got me to thinking: It looks like it would be > quite possible for one person to serve more than two terms as > President. > Let's suppose Smith is elected as President and Jones as Vice > President. Two years and one day into his term, Smith resigns, dies, > or is otherwise removed from office. Jones succeeds Smith as > President. > According to Amendment 22, Jones is still eligible to be elected twice > to the office of President, since he served less than two years of > Smith's term. If Jones is elected twice, he will serve a total of 10 > years minus 1 day as President. > Take it one step farther: After serving as President for one day short > of 10 years, Jones runs for Vice President again, on a ticket with > Brown. I didn't find anything in a quick search of the Constitution > that would prohibit that. Bzzzzt! You didn't look very hard. The last part of Amend XII reads: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." > Brown and Jones are elected. One week into his term as President, > Brown keels over from a massive pulmonary embolism. Jones becomes > President again, for another nearly four years. Nothing in the > Constitution to prevent that, as far as I can see. Sure there is. Jones is *ineligible* to be vice-president. See above. > There doesn't appear to be anything in the Constitution to prohibit > one person from serving as President for quite some time, with a > little conniving. There IS *one* 'loophole' in the rules, as currently written. A person can run for Vice-President, and be elected to _that_ office an indefinite number of times -- *as*long*as* he is 'eligible' for the office of President. He *is* 'eligible' if he has not: (a) been elected President twice -or- (b) (1) Been elected President once *and* (2) Served as president for more than 2 years of a term to which some other person was elected President. Thus, if he runs for, and is elected as, Vice-President every four years, and the sitting President resigns after 'two years and a day', the process _can_ be repeated in perpetuity. > Paul A Lee Sr Telecom Engineer > Rite Aid Corporation HL-IS-COM (Telecomm) V: +1 717 730-8355 > 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2410 F: +1 717 975-3789 > P.O. Box 3165, Harrisburg, PA 17105-3165 W: +1 717 805-6208 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think he is eligible to serve > as Vice President under President Brown since there is always the > possibility Brown *could* be impeached (after a week in office!), > be murdered by the Secret Service, or otherwise become incapacitated > as you suggest, and with the consitutional prohibition against one > person serving as president more than 2.5 terms, That is _not_ what the Constitution actually says. see above. > it would be necessary > for him to recuse or resign the position immediatly. Nope. Per Amend XII, since he is 'not eligible' for the office of the President, he is not eligible for the Vice-Presidency. End of story. ------------------------------ From: Steven J Sobol Subject: Re: Norvergence Question Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -0500 Jeff nor Lisa wrote: > William Van Hefner wrote: >> Accounts are also deemed in default if not paid within 10 days >> OF INVOICE. > Normally in the business world there is a 30 day window to pay > invoices. No, it depend specifically upon the credit terms offered. I do "due upon receipt", which is 0 days. My father usually does "2% 10 Net 30%" which means due in thirty days with a 2% discount if you pay in ten. There may be some industry-wide standards in specific industries, but there are no credit terms which could be considered universal. JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids. ------------------------------ Organization: Robert Bonomi Consulting Subject: Re: Norvergence Question From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:34:02 +0000 In article , Jeff nor Lisa wrote: > William Van Hefner wrote: >> Accounts are also deemed in default if not paid within 10 days >> OF INVOICE. > Normally in the business world there is a 30 day window to pay > invoices. *UNLESS* the contract terms specify otherwise. e.g. see practically _any_ real-estate lease. "Net 10" invoicing is not the norm, I'll agree. But it is -not- an incredible rarity, either. It's typical for small job-shop printing, and for minor plumbing/electrical/HVAC work. I've seen, more than once, invoices where the terms were: "2% 5 days, net 10, 1.5$/month thereafter" >> My question is, who would be foolish enough to sign such a contract??? > Yes, I'd like to know that as well. I can't understand how anyone in > business would enter into a contract without reviewing such basics as > terms of payment, exit clause, penalty clause, performance, etc., > especially for something as mission critical as telephone service; but > for any other service or product as well. > Jeez, the future isn't predictable. What happens if your company or a > location downsizes and you don't need the contracted capacity? What > happens if you don't like the service? And dealing with a start-up > company is always risky for lots of reasons. > By the way, does this Qwest actually own physical cable and > switchgear, or is just a reseller as well? Qwest is the current name for the former Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. ILEC for 14 states in the upper-Midwest and Northwest US. They've also been a national "alternative long-distance carrier" for several years. Does -that- answer your question? ------------------------------ From: martial-longarm@comcast.net Subject: Norvergence Contract Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:21:24 +0000 This company has been a pain in my ass from just about day one! Enough so to compel me to send a six page letter to my states Attorney General back in April. One of my many complaints was my Rental Agreement with Norvergence, that overnight turned into a five year lease with a company called Information Leasing Corp. My rental agreement, and that is just what Norvergence called it, states that they would be the rentor. Yet I never paid them a dime, it was sold before my first payment was due. The front of this agreement states that it was written in simple and easy to understand language. However, the back-side of this agreement is in very fine print, a lot of it. At the bottom is place for the person who signed the front to put his initials, thus confirming he has read the fine print. I never saw this side of the agreement, but someone put my initials there for me, and it's as plane as day that it is not my hand-writing. This rental agreement also says that this "Matrix SOHO" is not to be used for personal or home use, yet they installed in my home! They put it there because they gave me a line of bull that DSL was not available in my area, when in fact it was. Also, it not the magic Matrix SOHO box that they claimed would work woundrs, it's a damm Adtran router.If this is not doing something wrong then what the hell is. Furthermore, I was always under the impression that renting and leasing were two different things, aren't they? Lastly, the only thing I can find out about the leasing company, (Information Leasing Corp) is that they have been involved in law-suites for the same type as we now will have when we don't pay our lease payments, and yes, they have won. Thomas Hines Custom Crete Warehouse 203-773-9980 ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Getting out of Norvergence Contracts Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:05:28 -0500 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when londa.raymer@raymerbook.com (Londa Raymer) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Norvergence customers can find each >> other through a web site http://www.norvergence-cit-fraud.com >> set (of the google cached version) to be at >> http://www.telecombb.com, another domain that does not seem to >> exist. Curious. Some other online links: http://www.badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff98090.htm http://www.leasingnews.org/archives/July%202004/07-08-04.htm#nor (which suggests that some of the leasing companies were created by Norvergence) http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/norvergence (Yahoo group) ------------------------------ From: John Bartley Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:16:05 -0800 Subject: Re: Virtual PBX Competitors > John Bartley wrote in message > news:telecom23.332.11@telecom-digest.org: >> Who are the major competitors to Virtual PBX, for folks who don't want >> to maintain their own phone switch? >> Anyone here have experience with the Virtual PBX service? >> Thank you kindly. >> John Bartley K7AAY On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:20:48 GMT, AFN wrote: > Punch in "virtual pbx" at google and see the sponsor ads on the right. Is there perhaps someone here who might credit me for having *already* done so, and who has some on-topic information regarding Virtual PBX providers? Especially, experience with specific providers? Thank you to all the on-topic responders. _______________________________________________ Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:32:30 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Review: AirPort Express Exclusive: Apple AirPort Express with AirTunes By Jeremy Horwitz If Apple's iTunes music management software had only one major failing up until today, it would have been an obvious one: you could only hear your iTunes library through a computer. And if that computer wasn't in the same room with a nice pair of speakers - say, the large ones used in your home entertainment center - the only ways you could enjoy your digital music collection would be on a computer, or on an iPod. Effective today, that restriction has ended. With the release of AirPort Express, the third PC- and Mac-compatible device released by Apple Computer in the last two years, and related new software called AirTunes, your digital music library is now free to roam to speakers anywhere in your house, regardless of whether a computer or docked iPod is connected to them. At the same height but twice the thickness and .75" wider than an iPod mini, the AirPort Express is a small but powerful wireless base station that can serve print jobs and music through dedicated USB and digital/analog 3.5" ports. Prominently mentioned on the box, Apple's AirTunes software actually integrates almost invisibly with iTunes (versions 4.6 and later), adding a quick switch button that toggles between your computer's speakers and those connected to the Express station, wherever it is. Since iPodlounge is primarily concerned with AirPort Express' music-related capabilities, we will not go into extended detail on its other functionality. But we do have some opinions on our initial experiences with its software that may be of interest to potential buyers. http://www.ipodlounge.com/reviews_more.php?id=4459_0_6_0_M ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Payphone Ringer Troubleshooting Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:43:32 GMT In article , tadc@withheld says: > Hello all, and greetings to Pat. Please remove my email address from > this post for spam supression purposes. > I have an Automatic Electric manufactured coin station of a fairly > modern vintage(it has the "loud" button next to the keypad if that > helps date it). It is branded GTE. > Some time ago, the ringer completely ceased to function. All other > functions of the phone seem intact. > Does anybody have any troubleshooting tips for identifying and perhaps > repairing the problem with the ringer? Schematics perhaps? I'm faily > well versed with the use of a VOM/DMM for troubleshooting. > Thanks for any tips. There's usually a 47uf capacitor across the ringer that dries out with age. Or it may not even be there -- they take it out sometime to stop the ringer from working but still register as a device. I'd check that first. ------------------------------ From: charles@telephonesecurity.com (Charles Patterson) Subject: Re: Curly Telephone Receiver Cords Untangled Date: 16 Jul 2004 14:29:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com >> What is the trick to untangling a curly cord from the telephone >> receiver to the base? ... >> There is a particular movement that does untangles when a telephone >> receiver cord gets curled in upon itself. I actually studied one user whose cord was always tangled so tightly that she regularly had only about 6 inches of stretch left in it. The cause was this: the phone was on the left side of her desk, she would answer with her left hand, transfer the handset to her right hand to talk, then pass it back to the left hand to hang up. In that return to the left hand she put one full twist on it. Choices were 1. move the phone, 2. stop using two hands, 3. use a handset twister adapter that always fail anyway, 4. periodic manual untwisting or cord replacements. Now the real mystery question: Handset cords that seem to have that one single twist where the curls seem to fold back on themselves... If there were two twists, one could meet the other and cancel each other out, but that single twist- those that have seen it have undoubtedly pondered it, the only thing I can see to do it is to work it slowly out to the end. But the cord never seems the same after that... what causes that lone phantom twist, and can it ever be restored to the original curl? My only theory is that it may have something to do with the conductors inside the cord shifting around... charles ------------------------------ From: Ernie Klein Subject: Re: Death Penalty Applies to Top Posters? Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 19:33:28 -0700 Organization: Not very organized In article , Jack Decker wrote: > Pardon me for being clueless, but what the heck is a "top-poster"? I > hope I'm not the only one who didn't get that. > Jack A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? No, not mine - stole it from somewhere. -Ernie- "There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will." Have you done your backup today? ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day For July, 2004 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 2:00:00 EDT Instead of changing the Digest over to an advrtising supported forum, I have always elected to keep it as a user supported forum, and for the most part keep it spam and virus free. I am *only* able to do this because of financial support from readers here, and if you would rather not see these messages every month, then please pitch in and help now and then! Consider it sort of like public radio, which goes on for days at a time trying to raise money ... and maybe I should adopt the same system. Turn over the entire Digest once or twice a year to fund raising (entire issues, etc) and stop doing it when the budget for the year has been raised. But for now, I will stick with the present system of devoting a few messages at the end of each month to raising money for the Digest publication expenses. Out of 400-500 messages per month, in a spam, virus free environment, two or three (only) devoted to fund raising. You know who you are; please provide some help here financially. Especially those of you in the past few months who have saved much money by not getting involved in the Norvergence scam. I suggest one month of the money you would have had to spend if you had gotten involved with it. You can use Pay Pal to donate with a credit/debit card by going to our web site http://telecom-digest.org and at the bottom of the home page look for the PayPal 'donate' button. Or if you prefer, send a check or money order to Patrick Townson/TELECOM, Post Office Box 50, Independence, Kansas 67301-0050. The amount you send is entirely up to you. You know best how much you can afford and whether or not this Digest has any value for you. Thank you very much. Patrick Townson, Editor/Publisher 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. ************************ 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 ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #337 ******************************