On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:43:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>(Would have replied by email, as it's a general chat, but I sensed it's
>probably not a real email!)
>
>In message <j88gvihejmbt3i0pb5qvp6h891n7rhopfd@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>2024 11:35:35, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:04 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
>>>2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>>>>to some points inline if that's okay?
>>>
>>>I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
>>>easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I
>>
>> Well, I *was* using Usenet way back in the previous Century, deep
>>into the last Millennium before this one, so I've acquired some bad
>>habits. :)
>
>No, _good_ habits!
>
>[] (short for "[something snipped here]")

Oh. I've used "<<snipped>>" for decades. I did wonder what "[]" was
but I didn't put in the mental processing to work it out. I just
stored it in one of the "people are strange" blobs of protoplasm I use
for wetware storage.

I have loads of those.

>
>> My idiot sister sometimes does this, too. It's a Thing. It's probably
>>due to Microsoft's old, old Outhouse mail programs opening a reply-to
>>email with the cursor at the top and no Training Officer ever telling
>>newbies that the cursor can be moved.
>
>To be fair, starting with the cursor at the top is a _good_ thing, if
>interposting and snipping is used;

Hmm, perhaps but they *don't* interpost or snip. I've taught trainees
to do those things, and others, and they get this massive lightbulb
moment that seems to change their lives.

It's like they suddenly see that the software can do what *they* want
to do not just one trick.

>however, OE more or less came in when
>the concept of a Training Officer for newbies was going out.

Well, I was a sort of training officer for new guys until about 2012.
Then I stopped. I also stopped using OE, O, MSOffice and all that crud
at the same time.

It's a vast relief.

>(Entirely
>bottom-posting is almost as bad, especially if no snipping is done - and
>particularly irritating for those using Braille or speech interfaces.)

True.

>>
>> My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
>>text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
>>seems to elide them for her sometimes.
>
>Snipping is joining interposting as a lost art.

Which is funny. We only had those as arts and skills for about twenty
years or so.

Still, I have many other "skills" that will never be used because the
tech they work on has gone the way of pteranodons.

>[]
>>>There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
>>>the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
>>>may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.
>>
>> Yerp, good thinking, but far too much like work to get the box
>>running. Plugging her into the wall seemed more expedient.
>>
>It's fairly obvious once you are looking for it: something like "leave
>USB ports powered during sleep". It's there more or less specifically
>for that reason - so people can use their PC as a 'phone charger.

I've used my PC as a 'phone charger for decades, and the MBP, too
without ever fiddling with the settings. They seem to know when a box
is milking them.

> If
>you've got the wall-warts though, probably better (other than taking up
>another socket); sometimes they might output more power, too, than the
>PC ports, especially on an older PC. (And they're not awkwardly round
>the back, too.)

My 2013, Win-7 Ultimate box has USB ports at the rear, at the front
under a slidey cover and on its forehead. Many of them are
"superspeed" USB 3.0 or something.

It was the last gasp of Win-7 tech advancing into the bleeding edge
of greatness at the time I bought it. Win-10 boxen were flooding the
stores and those were actually poorer in resources, ports and
specifications.

I guess she'll die or become obsolete at some point but for now she
works beautifully.

>[]
>>>> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>>>>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.
>>>
>>>Read McDonalds. (Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
>>>take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
>>>free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
>>>of pounds.)
>>
>> Well, "(a" wouldn't bother me as no-one seems to care if I occupy a
>>seat in their house for hours. I'm quiet, polite and I do order the
>>odd cup of sludge so I'm taken as furniture.
>>
>> "(b)" wouldn't be an issue as I don't drive a motorised carriage. I
>>never have. Many of my relative do but more than a few don't. It's
>>just not a compulsion in UKland as it is in USAlia. We can *often*
>>walk to the shops on pedestrian pathways. UKland, England, was
>>designed for Roman soldiers marching about annoying the natives. It
>>has multi-millennia old roads that still work, though some of the
>>newer ones are far less pleasant, accessible and safe.
>
>I'm in UKland too! Just rather rural (put TN27 0DD into Google Maps);
>OK, you may think mid-Kent can't be rural, but a car is, while not
>absolutely necessary, more than somewhat useful.

I see that. I'm in the middle of a City and a car would be bloody
useful at times. Buses don't run all night and some things are well
outside easy walking distance.

Fortunately, taxis exist. They exist for a reason. I'm the reason. :)
I *like* taxis.

>I like your bit about
>the Romans! Certainly, a lot of our streets are definitely not suitable
>for the size of cars that are the norm in USia. (There's a current TV
>ad. for a car that goes "blah, blah, SUV - designed for the city". What,
>for driving through municipal flowerbeds?)

See Youtube videos advertising the USAlien "Canyonero". It's the
epitome of USAlien personal transport.

>[]
>> It's always possible that the SIM is as dumb as a politician and it
>
>I like it (-:
>[]
>>>>> Lithium cells are not
>>>>>normally to be exposed to civilians.
>>>>
>>>> They are in UKland. A lot. Maybe we're more trustworthy? :)
>>>
>>>(-: [And, therefore, the cells are usually not soldered in.]
>>
>> Well, mine never have been.
>>
>> Except in the Mac's. Apple seems to have a weird idea about "fixing"
>>stuff in that they don't want to allow it.
>>
>The EC has clamped down on that, and I gather the latest iPhone _is_
>more accessible in that way. (I know we're not in the EC, but I think
>we'll benefit.)

Apple has problems. They send kit to weird little places with weird
little laws that demand weird little specification changes and they
can't just ignore all those weirdnesses. Thanks to "Dodge versus Ford"
in the 1920's, they *must* try to make profits everywhere so they end
up with strange wall-plugs, odd languages, deranged keyboards and lots
of other annoying, fiddly bits.

It's their fault for being global but it's not *entirely* of their
making.

I sometimes feel a distant bit of sympathy for them. Just a teentsy,
tiny bit.

As far as UKland and Yurp go, that was both insane idiocy and a
nasty, mean, vicious, calculated act by hyper-wealthy guys to prevent
an E.U. directive from forcing them to reveal their off-shore assets.
They were given five years before the directive kicked in and they
made bloody good use of all of that time.
And we're suffering for it.

Still, so long as our multi-trillionaire owners can afford to provide
jobs for stewards and cleaners on their many super-yachts I suppose
they are helping The Economoy and that's a Good Thing.

>[]
>> Oh, we do have SIM-free phones. They tend to be "smart", loaded with
>>Google and too busy for my taste. They do have the advantage of being
>>able to take more than one electronic ghost of a SIM at once so you
>>can have more than one number on your box. That's good for
>>self-employer roofers and plumbers and such-like.
>>
>Last time I had a smartphone, it had two physical SIM slots. (It was a
>DooGee - not a make most people have heard of here, but well-known on
>eBay and elsewhere.)

Yet other rabbit-hole for me to dive into when I get bored. Thank you
for it. :)

>[]
>>>Basically, as far as the mobile/cellular network is concerned, it's
>>>using the 4G/5G/whatever network, so it has a number - even if you don't
>>>know what it is. It has to, so your access can be enabled and charged
>>>for. The same applies to _anything_ that uses the networks, like AIUI
>>>most new cars.
>>
>> That's funny. Cars running about with invisible mobile 'phones that
>>can't be used to call for help. I suppose it's inevitable, given the
>>technology we have, but I would have preferred an I.P. address. Still,
>>it works so I'm not whining.
>>
>I think calling for help is one thing they can do - not under user
>control, but I think if they detect a sudden deceleration, they do.
>Though I'm rather suspicious that the main _purpose_ of such
>connectivity is some combination of Big Brother wanting to track where
>all vehicles are at all times (they have SatNav, of course, so a GPS
>decoder), and the manufacturers wanting to "offer updates" [OK for the
>SatNav, I don't want for anything else!] and be able to disable the car.

ANPR already tracks you. As do the cameras on ever lamp-post and
building's cornice.

Insurance companies use on-board "flight-recorders" to help them to
avoid settling claims.

Some of it is good. Some less so. Some is downright sinister.

>[]
>> Yeah, I looked into that. The companies used to insist on having a
>>land-line to attach the broadband to. This used to mean you needed a
>>telephone *number*.
>
>Well, they need _some_ way for the broadband signals to get into your
>house!

Really? Truly? Well, I just never thought of that! :)

>Initially that used the physical 'phone line (and remains so for
>many addresses), even if it isn't actually _used_ for 'phone service; in
>some places, particularly in towns, they're installing
>fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).

I think this was once installed in my house and might still be there
but if so it's old and unused.

>>
>> When I looked around a couple of days ago, they had separated the
>>two. A *line* is still needed, but you don't need telephone service
>>any longer.
>>
>That's because - allegedly sometime next year (2025), though I expect
>it'll be ragged - they're turning off the old telephone system
>altogether. (Most of the reasons given don't stand up to scrutiny, such
>as difficulty in getting parts; it's definitely a cost-cutting exercise.
>Access to emergency services when well into a power cut is something
>they're just shrugging their shoulders about.)

"If they die, they die." <shrug> from the big blond guys. Anyway, we
can always use our iPhones.

One reason they may be killing POTS is for the copper wires.

J.