|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 2 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Re: Testing existing home wiring
Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Re: Home wiring
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 02 Jan 2009 06:28:33 GMT
From: David Clayton <dcstar@NOSPAM.myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Message-ID: <495db410$0$22103$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:40:28 -0500, Sam Spade wrote:
> Monty Solomon wrote:
>>Cell Phones and Driving:
>>
>>A substantial proportion of the American public believes that drivers
>>using cell phones are a serious traffic safety problem and that it is
>>unacceptable to use a cell phone while driving. Respondents who express
>>negative attitudes toward cell phone use while driving were found to be
>>somewhat less likely to use cell phones while driving; however, a
>>substantial proportion of respondents who express negative attitudes
>>toward using a cell phone while driving still admit doing so at least
>>occasionally. About two- thirds of drivers who use cell phones while
>>driving believe that it is safer to talk on a hands-free cell phone than
>>on a hand-held cell phone; however, the overwhelming majority of
>>available evidence suggests that it is not.
>>
>>
> The research is too generalized when it comes to hand-free units. They
> allow both hands to be on the wheel, thus removing one dangerous
> element; that is, holding a phone to the ear with only one hand on the
> wheel.
.......
I believe the problem is the assumption that the physical act of holding
a phone while driving is the inherently dangerous factor - the research
shows that the actual conversation is the danger.
Assuming that not holding a phone handset while driving makes it "safe"
seems to be disproved by this (and other) research. It may be "safer",
but by no means is it safe enough to be allowed for the vast majority of
driver on the world's roads.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:34:47 -0600
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Message-ID: <FvudnViYi_RI3MPUnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@posted.visi>
Sam Spade wrote:
> The other factor is driver training, experience, and discipline at
> conducting communications while operating a vechicle. Police do it
> all the time as do others in public safety. So do professional
> aircraft pilots.
But note that those people conduct short, ritualized transactions over
the radio. The cop is not negotiating with his daughter who wants to
get a tattoo, and the aircraft pilot is not talking to his pissed-off
wife. The fire engine driver is not talking to his grandmother or
drinking buddy.
I don't think there is any way to generalize on-the-job public safety
communications to the general public's telephone calls, even when the
general public is that same cop or pilot.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Testing existing home wiring
Message-ID: <gjlair$dbf$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <BMCdnYyat7E9lsDUnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@posted.visi>,
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>Rich Greenberg wrote:
>> Instead of having a filter hanging off each phone or TAD
>"Telephony Access Device"?
"Telephone Answering Device".
--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:57:05 -0800
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
Message-ID: <siegman-72EC17.07563502012009@news.stanford.edu>
In article <mX77l.1330$gE4.239@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
"MC" <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc> wrote:
>
> I think training makes the difference: emergency responders and ham
> operators are trained to divide their time effectively and to take
> care of the car first and the communication second.
>
Not a pilot myself, but isn't their mantra
"Aviate, Navigate, Communicate"
(in that order of priority).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:21:11 -0600
From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Message-ID: <B-CdnZg6GJs8o8PUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@posted.visi>
Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Of course, regulating financial institutions to protect consumers is
> not as flashy as regulating the Internet.
I think the problem is really quite simple. Credit bureaus sell
information about you. They do so without making any effort to verify
its truthfulness. Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in
any way by their sale of untrue information.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:31:36 -0800
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Message-ID: <JSB7l.10116$as4.4639@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>
Dave Garland wrote:
> Dan Lanciani wrote:
>> Of course, regulating financial institutions to protect consumers is
>> not as flashy as regulating the Internet.
>
> I think the problem is really quite simple. Credit bureaus sell
> information about you. They do so without making any effort to verify
> its truthfulness. Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in
> any way by their sale of untrue information.
>
> Dave
>
That is very hard to do since they claim that the information they
supply to creditors and others has been passed on to them by creditors
and all they are doing is cataloging and passing it on.
I was involved in a class action against the 3 major bureaus because
they were being paid by banks and others to send credit card offers, to
people meeting the requirements for getting the card. This was before
the opt-Out rule. The claim was they were making money by selling our
private credit data for other then the owners of that data requesting
they give it to a creditor, even now there is question on you having to
ask them to stop. We were on of the named plaintiffs in the case and
out attorney made a bunch of money on the case, We got a pretty good
settlement also, and yet we still get these offers all the time, even
though I have and continue to request they no longer sell that data, I
have gone as far as putting a full block on my credit reports. I call
each time I get one of these and point it out to their lawyers that
they agreed not to do this anymore. They make so much money on these
reports that they can well afford the fines, what needs to be done is
make a criminal case, but no government agency want to make a case.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:17:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Reduced spam and increased security infrastructure?
Message-ID: <200901030517.AAA05628@ss10.danlan.com>
dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> Of course, regulating financial institutions to protect consumers is
|> not as flashy as regulating the Internet.
|
|I think the problem is really quite simple. Credit bureaus sell
|information about you. They do so without making any effort to verify
|its truthfulness. Make them liable for damages if you are harmed in
|any way by their sale of untrue information.
While I certainly have no objection to such a rule, it does nothing
to help the "identify theft" problem where the credit bureau provides
true information about the victim...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:44:51 GMT
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@verizon.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Home wiring
Message-ID: <nVv7l.2690$BC4.97@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
R. T. Wurth wrote:
> I'm having a new home built, and the issue of wiring came up.
>
> I envisioned any room where I might possibly want a TV or computer or
> phone, and ordered an appropriate outlet. I am planning coax for TV, and
> Cat 5 for phone/computer. I understand that phone uses the 2 middle pins,
> and Ethernet uses 4 of the 6 remaining pins, so they can share an outlet.
>
> My questions are:
>
> - How do I split the wires at a wall outlet if I want to use a phone and
> computer at the same point?
>
> - How should I terminate things in the utility closet? I suppose I'll want
> a patch panel of some sorts that will split out the telephone pair and
> present a field of 8P8C (commonly but mistakenly called R-45) jacks I can
> wire to a router. Is such a thing made? If so, what should I ask for? Can
> you recommend a specific product?
>
> - Assuming i have all the analog phone pairs separated from the data pairs,
> what is the best way to connect them to my incoming telephone line? Is
> there some sort of punch-down block for this purpose?
>
> - If I ask the electrician to just leave the wires dangle unterminated in
> the utility closet, can you recommend a good line of tools and supplies to
> terminate them myself?
>
> - Do you have any advice on points I haven't thought to ask about?
>
> Many thanks for your help.
Friend Wurth
I am probably too late but the suggestion I would make would be to
have multi-compartment raceway installed in place of the baseboards in
all rooms that have baseboards and just above the back splash in the
kitchen. Once installed such wireways provide a permanently
accessible means to run additional conductors or fibers to any point
in any room. The design of the raceway permits the installation of
devices such as receptacle outlets or communications jacks both in the
raceway and in the wall above it. Should you want more information
just ask.
Has your foundation footer been pored yet? If not you have an
excellent chance to improve the electrical safety of your home by
having a genuine Ufer grounding electrode installed. This is done by
double tying the reinforcing steel in the footer and the basement
floor and subbing out a piece of coated rebar or a conductor that is
already properly attached to the reinforcing steel at the location of
the electrical service disconnecting means enclosure. There is no
batter grounding electrode system on a homes lot then a properly
installed Ufer grounding electrode.
--
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
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://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest
Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (8 messages)
******************************
|
or 