---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20160927220920.GA13487@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:09:20 -0400 From: The Moderator <telecomdigestsubmissions@remove-this.telecom-digest.org> Subject: Re: How to send posts to The Telecom Digest On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:36:34AM -0400, tlvp wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:04:42 -0400, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote > > > If you read The Telecom Digest via the Usenet group comp.dcom.telecom, > > you need only post a new message, or hit "reply" to an existing > > message, and it will be automatically routed to our inbox with proper > > threading info included. > > "Will be?" More like "Should be," in my experience, "but isn't." Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I meant "If you are using a newsreader to read the Telecom Digest via the Usenet group comp.dcom.telecom. ..." In other words, if you use the newsreader feature of Thunderbird, or pine, or some other nntp client, you won't have to worry about threading info. The issue only comes up if you get the DIGEST version of The Telecom Digest, via email. > I find the <mailto:telecomdigestsubmissions[atsign]telecom-digest.org> address works, tho'. > > But thanks for the Message-ID inclusion request. New to me. Appreciated. You're welcome. It's ONLY necessary IF you are replying to a message you read in the *DIGEST* version of The Telecom Digest. If you have your subscription set to receive individual emails, or if you use a newsreader to read the Digest, don't worry about it. > > ... This applies to Google and Yahoo Groups users as well. > > I have no experience either way in those regards. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp Both Google and Yahoo Groups will enter your replies directly into the Usenet system, so threading info will be preserved. HTH. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <yazt7k627pzr.po29s4caeg05.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:36:34 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> Subject: Re: How to send posts to The Telecom Digest On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 23:04:42 -0400, Telecom Digest Moderator wrote, in Message-ID: <20160926030442.GA30113@telecom.csail.mit.edu>: > If you read The Telecom Digest via the Usenet group comp.dcom.telecom, > you need only post a new message, or hit "reply" to an existing > message, and it will be automatically routed to our inbox with proper > threading info included. "Will be?" More like "Should be," in my experience, "but isn't." I find the <mailto:telecomdigestsubmissions[atsign]telecom-digest.org> address works, tho'. But thanks for the Message-ID inclusion request. New to me. Appreciated. > ... This applies to Google and Yahoo Groups users as well. I have no experience either way in those regards. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <8BFE2E71-A40A-4709-A55A-994A190FF863@roscom.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:45:57 -0400 From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> Subject: Phone Makers Could Prevent Texting by Drivers. Why don't they? Apple and digital giants have developed potentially lifesaving technology to block texting while driving, but it's still not being deployed. With driving fatalities rising at levels not seen in 50 years, the growing incidence of distracted driving is getting part of the blame. Now a lawsuit related to [a] 2013 Texas crash is raising a question: Does Apple - or any cellphone maker or wireless company - have a responsibility to prevent devices from being used by drivers in illegal and dangerous ways? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/technology/phone-makers-could-cut-off-drivers-so-why-dont-they.html ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20160927035037.GA1929@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 23:50:37 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Snowden on Google Allo: "Don't Use It" Following the launch of Google's messaging app "Allo" and its accompanying Assistant bot, security experts are up in arms over Google reneging on a promise [to] better protect its users. NSA-contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden did a hot take on Allo yesterday, after its US launch, and came to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a honeypot for US surveillance efforts. By Edward Snowden The controversy goes back to Google's developer conference, I/O, back in May. There, Google demonstrated the new application to a crowd at Shoreline Amphitheater while promising Allo would be encrypted and safe for users. I was in attendance, as was TNW alum Nate Swanner, who penned this after the announcement: Allo uses end-to-end encryption, too - at least via an incognito mode (just like Chrome!). You'll also be able to decide how long messages stick around. If you're looking for something similar, Allo is a bit like a private, semi-automated Facebook social layer that you can use privately. http://thenextweb.com/google/2016/09/22/snowden-on-google-allo-dont-use-it/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <37A236E0-ED63-47C3-85B0-B69DB9C7B5A3%usenet@news.jmatt.net> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:23:22 -0000 (UTC) From: Matt Simpson <usenet@news.jmatt.net> Subject: Re: AT&T Lab's Project AirGig Nears First Fiedld Trials "Harold Hallikainen" <harold@mai.hallikainen.org> wrote: > I wonder how this works as power lines are moved underground. I would guess that the kinds of areas where this might be used will never see their power lines go underground. And if the power lines do get buried, that would probably be seen as a great opportunity to drop fiber in the trench at the same time to avoid the need for something like this. > We live in a house built in 1906. Right now I can see 18 access > points, one of which is in our house. And there are no access points visible from my house. Totally different environments. > Power poles certainly have the density such that you'd only have to > cover a few houses with each pole (pretty much the same as the > number of power, phone, or CATV drops per pole). Few houses with each pole? I'm in an area with multiple poles between houses. Some poles would cover a single house, while most would serve none at all. And there ain't no CATV drops on any of them. I've got doubts about whether this technology will ever become feasible. But it's obviously not even intended for the kind of environment you seem to be thinking about, where houses are less than a half-mile apart. Areas that dense are more likely to have fiber or wire strung to them. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Wed, 28 Sep 2016