28 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981

Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  


Message Digest 
Volume 28 : Issue 323 : "text" Format

Messages in this Issue:
  Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens  
  Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers
  Re: A new scam? "Congratulations! This is your lucky day, ..."

====== 28 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: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:58:49 -0500 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 'Sexting' popular among teens Message-ID: <j_GdnS4HN_-oVILWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> David Kaye wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > >> IMHO, while this practice should be discouraged, kids should not be >> prosecuted under felony charges for this sort of thing. But I've >> heard from some parents who feel aggressive law enforcement is the >> right way to go. > > This whole WINS news story is troubling because it goes on and on > about young people's brains not being as developed, etc., and them not > knowing the consequences of their actions, etc. What WINS fails to > say is that times have changed and today's younger folks really don't > think of naked photos as any big deal. And why should they be? > Bodies are pretty. We're born naked, after all. Times may have changed, but young people have not: evolution has not progressed to the point where teenagers are able to appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, or to anticipate undesirable outcomes when short-term aggrandizement takes the place of long-term societal benefit. My wife and I have good friends whose son's cell phone was stolen. The phone contained private pictures of their son and some of his friends, in their birthday suits. The thieves amused themselves by sending the pictures to everyone on the phone's number list, including the boy's teachers. What followed could best be described as a comedy of errors, with his school's officials violating almost every procedure, rule, and law that could possibly be applied: our friends were able to keep their child in school, but only because his rights had been so flagrantly abused as to cast doubt on the basic competencies of the school employees involved. In other words, he got very lucky. This is a topic that covers a wide swath of industrial life - policy, technology, legal, and socioeconomic. Let's step back a pace, and consider the perspective of each player. 1. The radio station is selling advertising, and sex sells. If their listeners are afraid of it, they'll hype it until the last drive-time radio is back in the last commuter's garage. They don't care if it's true: they care about selling soap. I'd say "Shame on them", but the shame is ours, and they're just exploiting it. 2. The school systems are selling the impression of safety, and draconian rules and kneejerk reactions make parents think their tiny cuddwy luvvy ones are "safe". The truth is always different: anyone who has endured American public-school culture and practice knows that bureaucrats value conformity over safety, mediocrity over achievement, and control over common sense. Students who don't (pun intended) fit the mold are dropped off the end of the assembly line and swept away: there is no room on that conveyor belt for free thinkers, risk-takers, or sub-standard cogs destined for the industrial machine. 3. The students are thumbing their noses at "normalcy", which is what young people do. In one sense, this *IS* nothing new: children always question their parents (and their parents' surrogates), and do things that both will someday regret. What IS new is the technology available to the children for use in getting their parents' attention, and since every child does whatever it takes to get the attention, no matter what the century or the government or the "norm" is 'sposed to be, we're seeing the latest sideshow in a carnival that has been running since Adam and Eve. Children can't judge the consequences of their actions - that is a truism as old as humanity, and they are, after all, children - but for adults to bleat about the consequences of giving such tools to children is like telling kids that they shouldn't touch the firearm dad keeps in the drawer next to his bed. 4. The body politic (that's us) is desperately trying to make Marshall McLuhan's and Pete Seeger's predictions come true: we're marching backward into Bonanza land, reaching over our shoulders for an innocence that we can never quite grasp. Even if we can't have it, we'll settle for a pale imitation, and demand that civil servants reassure us again and again that everything is in control and nothing can ever go wrong - "... while Superman, for the thousandth time, sells talking dolls and conquers crime, dutifully they learn the date of birth of Paul Revere". The question is "Where does this lead us?", and my crystal ball is as cloudy as everyone else's. My opinions, for what they're worth: It is, of course true that we were born naked. It's also true that we can't survive that way, at least in the majority of the world's climates. Clothing isn't optional, and never has been, so covering our bodies is the norm, and always will be. That is, however, a separate issue from the way that an endless line of control freaks uses the promise of approbation and the threat of humiliation to impose their will on others: everyone from religious zealots to egomaniacs with Messiah complexes to senatorial candidates are all eager to order everyone else to put on the latest fashion and attitudes instead of putting off their shame. If everyone were naked, it wouldn't be interesting. In this matter, Jerry Lewis was right: if we raise our kids well, we can take them into a whorehouse and it won't make any difference. The fact is that we live in a society which raises children to be ashamed and secretive about their bodies and sex, because it's a very effective and easy-to-implement control mechanism that even the dullards in public office and the "leaders" in our factories can use without retraining. It's not the children who need to answer for feelthy peektures on their cellphones: Walt Kelly was right, long before cellphones or megapixels had entered our vocabulary. "We have met the enemy, and he is us". Bill Horne -- (Speaking for myself) (Filter QRM from my address for direct replies)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:10:14 GMT From: "Liron" <nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: Jamaica running out of phone numbers Message-ID: <GXITm.61238$ze1.41691@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Canberra, in Australia, a city of around 200,000-300,000 people around 1990, had 800,000 useable 6 digit numbers, and yet they also must have been running out of numbers, for Canberra numbers were changed from (062) xx yyyy to (06) 2xx yyyy, thus providing an additional 200,000 numbers. For example, you could have (06) 20xx yyyy but not (062) 0x yyyy. So all the home phones, second home phones, business phones, faxes, DID blocks, separate voice mailbox numbers, fax numbers, etc. etc., that either were there or would appear over the next decade, would have been enough to cause them to make this move. Mobile phones had nothing to do with this as they had their own area code. Liron <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:hfl62n$1jk1$1@adenine.netfront.net... > Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote: >> > [...] >>> Jamaica was assigned eight million usable numbers in 1997, but is >>> now down to one million, according to Maurice Charvis, OUR deputy >>> director general, due largely to the growth in the mobile market. > [...] >> Jamaica has 2.7 million people, about the size of Chicago. Can they >> prove that the 876 allocations were done efficiently without number >> portability? Of course not. But then, this hasn't prevented NANPA >> from assigning new area codes anywhere else. > [...] > Of course, not everyone has a home phone, a mobile and an office phone (or > they would have used more than 8 million numbers already) but PABX's will > have a block of numbers with many spares.
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:28:59 GMT From: "Liron" <nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: A new scam? "Congratulations! This is your lucky day, ..." Message-ID: <%kITm.61229$ze1.24847@news-server.bigpond.net.au> See if your carrier has online billing where it can list all the numbers dialled. If so, then you can check the number dialled. If it was the one that you intended to dial yet you the number not available recording please dial another number, then you're onto something. Liron "tlvp" <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote in message news:op.u4li3bg3o63xbg@acer250.gateway.2wire.net... > What in the world is happening here? > > Again today, for the third time in my +1-203 at&t territory, an 800 > number I dialed fetched up with a telephone company "number has > changed" interrupt informing me of the "new number" (today, as > 1-800-712-5000). At the new number I meet the greeting in the > "Subject:" line, followed by an urgent sales pitch offered by a very > enthusiastic mini-skirted-high-school-cheer-leader voice. > > I hang up, dial my intended 800 number again, and get through to the > party I originally intended. > > OK: the first time something like that happened to me, several weeks > ago, I had, to be honest, misread the number I wanted, hence > misdialed. > > The second time I'm pretty sure I had dialed correctly. > > On today's occasion, I'm certain I dialed correctly, as I was > looking at the number's listing in my phone book as I was dialing. > > So, again: what's going on? Is at&t selling randomly selected > failed-call-completion moments to nefarious telephone marketers? Or > what? > > Cheers, -- tlvp
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications 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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne. 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: 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 Copyright (C) 2009 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 (3 messages)

Return to Archives ** Older Issues