You know, we have a word for that
Tim McDaniel
characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
dates the story so badly.
Turner Classic Movies had a Doctor Kildare movie marathon last night.
My education having been sadly neglected, I caught several of them.
(Now I understand the throwaway line in _Blazing Saddles_, where the
Big Bad looks out the window at the man in the wheelchair about to be
hanged, and comments "Ah, yes, the Doctor Gillespie murders.")
In _Doctor Kildare Goes Home_, the solution to the doctor moving out
of a small Connecticut town is posited as the townspeople each paying
a group of doctors 10 cents a week, for which they get free care. To
cut costs, the doctors will use preventive medicine [1]. Any modern
American worker instantly thinks "doctor-managed HMO" (Health
Maintenance Organization). But in the movie, it has to be explained in
detail, and the closest they get to the modern concept is "It's like
life insurance". Even the words "health insurance" don't occur to
anyone.
More firmly in SF: in Poul Anderson's "Un-Men" (up for a Retro Hugo
this year), Stefan Rostomily looked like and acted like a duplicate of
Martin Donner, Weinberger, Robert Naysmith, Juho Lampi, Peter
Christian, Carlos Martinez, Villareal, and a chauffeur, and how
there's The Un-Man "the hated and feared shadow who could strike in a
dozen places at once ... and who had now risen from his grave to harry
them again", like a Venus fly pimpernel. The correct explanation
presumably occurs to you at once.
The baddies and goodies start to twig to something odd during the
story. Explanations considered included
- surgery and cosmetics
- sons of Stefan Rostomily
- matter duplication
- "robots--androids, synthetic life--whatever you want to call it.
Test-tube monsters!"
- "creatures from the stars"
The final page explains. "Exogenesis" is growing an embryo in an
artificial womb.
"... Exogenesis of a fertilized ovum was already an accomplished
fact. It was only one step further to take a few complete cells
from Rostomily and use them as -- as a chromosome source.
"We Brothers, all of us, we're completely human. Except that our
hereditary pattern is derived entirely from one person instead of
from two and, therefore, duplicates its prototype exactly. There
are thousands of us by now, scattered around the Solar System. ..."
Note the long explanation and the absence of the word "clone" and
As a minor example: I can't find my copy of Heinlein's _Space Cadet_,
but near the beginning, Our Boy takes a cell phone call but uses the
wrong words to describe it. The only thing I remember is that the
phone "sounded". [2]
[1] Some have recently been skeptical of the economic value of
preventive medicine. But it's mentioned as something unremarkable
that in this village of perhaps 1000 people, last year four people got
typhus and two died, and one character gets strep meningitis from
swimming in a known polluted stream, so I think the economics of 1940
preventive medicine may well have been different from today's.
[2] He also says that he can't talk on his cell phone because he's in
public, which shows early Heinlein's crazy utopianism.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>As a minor example: I can't find my copy of Heinlein's _Space Cadet_,
>but near the beginning, Our Boy takes a cell phone call but uses the
>wrong words to describe it. The only thing I remember is that the
>phone "sounded". [2]
"Say, isn't that your phone sounding?"
After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
noise instead. My son's new cell actually makes the sound of an
old-fashioned 1930s phone ringing its little bell. But that's
because he had a choice of about twenty and he liked that one.
People do sometimes still say "ringing" out of habit, but they
also say "beeping" and "shut that damn thing off!" and "Oh, you
downloaded that one too, it's just like mine." For my money that
cell phone is one Heinlein got *right.)
Digression: the latest _Astronomy_ goes on about how the Galilean
satellites (other than Io) are covered with ice crusts over deep
deep liquid water oceans. Scratch _Farmer in the Sky._
>
>[2] He also says that he can't talk on his cell phone because he's in
>public, which shows early Heinlein's crazy utopianism.
He says, "I'll have to sign off--I'm in a crowd." In context it
sounds less like "everybody knows it's rude to talk on the phone
in a crowd" than like "Dammit, Dad, I'm old enough to be out on
my own, quit mother-henning me where other people can hear you!"
Note that Tex's next remark is "Your folks always worry, don't
they? I fooled mine--packed my phone in my bag."
(After having turned the sounding mechanism off, one hopes.)
Andrew B. Gross
"Tim McDaniel" <tm...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:can9an$5rg$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us...
> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at the
> characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
> plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
> because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
> dates the story so badly.
Not exactly what you're asking for, but along the same lines, probably the
single most stupid plot device in the history of bad movies is from
Independence Day, where the massively technically advanced aliens needed to
hijack our sattelite network and beam a countdown to all of their spaceships
around the world so that they could coordinate their attacks-- evidently,
they had neglected to invent "clocks".
Michael S. Schiffer
news:can9an$5rg$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us:
> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at
> the characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where
> the secret plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the
> modern read er because we have a word or phrase for the concept?
> To me, it just dates the story so badly.
Whereas I love this sort of thing (and really hate the sorts of
rewrites intended to eliminate them). It's fascinating to me to
see what a concept looked like to people who were making it up or
extrapolating from very early data, and how close or far they were
compared with how things actually worked out.
Sure, it dates the story, but it's not as if a 1950 story can be
made not a 1950 story by inserting modern references. I'd rather
see a good period piece than a patchwork attempt at updating. The
"way the future was" bits just add to the exoticness of the
setting for me.
>...
> As a minor example: I can't find my copy of Heinlein's _Space
> Cadet_, but near the beginning, Our Boy takes a cell phone call
> but uses the wrong words to describe it. The only thing I
> remember is that the phone "sounded". [2]
>...
> [2] He also says that he can't talk on his cell phone because
> he's in public, which shows early Heinlein's crazy utopianism.
To me, that scene comes across as very much in keeping with modern
practice. Matt answers the phone right in the middle of a
conversation with a new acquaintance and talks for a bit. Only
when the conversation turns uncomfortable (Dad starts trying to
prepare Matt for the possibility of washing out of the program)
does Matt suddenly "remember" that he's in a crowd and has to sign
off. It's an excuse to get out of an unwanted call, but not
anything that deterred him from taking the call in the first
place. (Tex acknowledges this with his next line, notes that he
avoided the problem entirely by packing his phone in his luggage.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Michael S. Schiffer
news:HzD15...@kithrup.com:
> In article <can9an$5rg$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
> Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>...
>>[2] He also says that he can't talk on his cell phone because
>>he's in public, which shows early Heinlein's crazy utopianism.
> He says, "I'll have to sign off--I'm in a crowd." In context it
> sounds less like "everybody knows it's rude to talk on the phone
> in a crowd" than like "Dammit, Dad, I'm old enough to be out on
> my own, quit mother-henning me where other people can hear you!"
Or "What? I'm having trouble hearing you over the crowd! I guess
I'll have to hear your well-meant advice some other time! Bye!"
> Note that Tex's next remark is "Your folks always worry, don't
> they? I fooled mine--packed my phone in my bag."
> (After having turned the sounding mechanism off, one hopes.)
With modern tech, you'd expect him to have turned the entire phone
off for at least three reasons. (Battery life, possible
interference with the air/spacecraft's electronics, and FCC
regulations intended to prevent one phone in flight from contacting
and using resources from every cell tower in line of sight.) I
don't know if it's clear whether the phones in Space Cadet have off
switches. (It seems obvious, but wired phones didn't have them in
1947-- if you wanted to silence a phone, you unplugged it from the
wall. That Tex didn't just turn his phone off suggests that it may
not have been so obvious as all that.)
Andrew Plotkin
> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at the
> characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
> plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
> because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
> dates the story so badly.
I was somewhat unnerved to find myself shouting "It's only a lump of
wellstone, you morons!" at Scott Westerfeld's _Killing of
Worlds_. It dates the story badly... to the past four years.
(Following McCarthy's 2000 book about the stuff.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael S. Schiffer <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>I don't know if it's clear whether the phones in Space Cadet have off
>switches. (It seems obvious, but wired phones didn't have them in
>1947-- if you wanted to silence a phone, you unplugged it from the
>wall. That Tex didn't just turn his phone off suggests that it may
>not have been so obvious as all that.)
It was even worse than that. Digging through _Grumbles_ (which
I'm not going to do right now), one finds that there was a
(either local or FCC) regulation that you *could not* turn the
ringer off on a phone. Heinlein wanted to turn his off, and they
wouldn't let him, till he put an extension out in the garage and
kept the ringer on out there; THEN he was permitted to turn off
the one in his office.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Aaron Denney
<handwave>
Relativistic effects made them drift during the flight here.
<nitpick>
Ignore the fact that they could then resynchronize.
</nitpick>
</handwave>
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Glenn Dowdy
"Aaron Denney" <wno...@ofb.net> wrote in message
news:slrnccuj9t...@ofb.net...
Glenn D.
Tim McDaniel
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Digression: the latest _Astronomy_ goes on about how the Galilean
>satellites (other than Io) are covered with ice crusts over deep
>deep liquid water oceans.
*All*? I'd just heard it about Europa.
> Scratch _Farmer in the Sky._
_Hydroponic Farmer in the Sky._
_Pisciculture in the Sky._
Michael S. Schiffer
It might have also been an AT&T policy-- they were fairly imperious
during their monopoly days, and their agents and the FBI were both
sometimes fairly hazy on the difference between phone company
directives and the law. (They also dragged their heels on allowing
anything not owned by them to be connected to the phone network for
decades on the grounds that it might be dangerous to the system.
The Rube Goldberg-style answering machines familiar to anyone who
watched "The Rockford Files" was one attempt to work around the
problem; the acoustic modem was another.)
David Bilek
>Here, Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at the
>> characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
>> plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
>> because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
>> dates the story so badly.
>
>I was somewhat unnerved to find myself shouting "It's only a lump of
>wellstone, you morons!" at Scott Westerfeld's _Killing of
>Worlds_. It dates the story badly... to the past four years.
>(Following McCarthy's 2000 book about the stuff.)
>
Er, what's wellstone? I don't really care for McCarthy's stuff.
-David
Dorothy J Heydt
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <HzD15...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Digression: the latest _Astronomy_ goes on about how the Galilean
>>satellites (other than Io) are covered with ice crusts over deep
>>deep liquid water oceans.
>
>*All*? I'd just heard it about Europa.
And Ganymede and Callisto.
Quick look at graphics: Ganymede has a thin ice crust over a very
very deep water ocean over a mantle about as deep again as the ocean,
over a metallic core. Europa has a slightly thicker ice crust
than Ganymede's over a much shallower ocean over a rather thicker
mantle over a core about the same size. Most of Callisto's
interior is a mixture of rock and ice, which is surrounded by a
salty ocean. And a thin ice crust, I guess, though they don't
mention it.
It's the July 2004 issue, vol. 32 no. 7.
Paul F Austin
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:HzD6q...@kithrup.com...
Also, phones weren't "unpluggable" then. They were hard-wired into the wall.
I think the 'phone jack was introduced after the Carterphone decision.
David Cowie
>
> "Aaron Denney" <wno...@ofb.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnccuj9t...@ofb.net...
>>
>> <handwave>
>> Relativistic effects made them drift during the flight here.
>> <nitpick>
>> Ignore the fact that they could then resynchronize.
>> </nitpick>
>> </handwave>
>>
> But they were in different time zones.
>
Were any of them in the time zones that are half an hour different? That
would really muck up their synchronization.
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Containment Failure + 5139:32
Michael S. Schiffer
news:l1Jzc.14263$I%4.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
I wondered when that change had taken place (I knew they'd started
out hardwired), but may have missed my guess on it. Though the
Carterphone decision strikes me as too late at 1968. Buildings
around here predating that year by a decade have four-prong phone
jacks that seem pretty clearly not retrofitted. Those were in turn
being superseded by RJ11 jacks starting in the 70s at the latest.
(One web site indicates that at some unspecified point before the
Carterphone decision, having a four-prong jack was the result of
paying a premium for a "portable" phone. Another places the
introduction of the four-prong jack at some point before 1957, when
the modem was invented, but doesn't say specifically when.)
Wayne Throop
:: probably the single most stupid plot device in the history of bad
:: movies is from Independence Day, where the massively technically
:: advanced aliens needed to hijack our sattelite network and beam a
:: countdown to all of their spaceships around the world so that they
:: could coordinate their attacks-- evidently, they had neglected to
:: invent "clocks".
: Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net>
: <handwave>
: Relativistic effects made them drift during the flight here.
: <nitpick>
: Ignore the fact that they could then resynchronize.
: </nitpick>
: </handwave>
Simpler handwave: they just didn't care about stealth, didn't care that we
were able to listen in, and were broadcasting the countdown for roughly
the same reasons (but less necessary) as the various synchronization
protocols that run around on the internet, plus if it's a central
countdown, a central hold can be placed on it, or other rescheduling
done by central planning, on the fly, if needed.
In short, they had (or thought they had) no reason not to do it,
it was effortless, so any little excuse would do as a reason to do it.
Or put it this way. In watching it, I didn't think "oh, how stupid of
them, they should use clocks", I thought "how arrogant of them, they
think they're untouchable".
But then, maybe I was reading sense into nonsense.
There was of course plenty of nonsense lying around
into which sense could and often needed to be read.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: It was even worse than that. Digging through _Grumbles_ (which I'm
: not going to do right now), one finds that there was a (either local
: or FCC) regulation that you *could not* turn the ringer off on a
: phone. Heinlein wanted to turn his off, and they wouldn't let him,
: till he put an extension out in the garage and kept the ringer on out
: there; THEN he was permitted to turn off the one in his office.
Couldn't he just put his phone in a soundproof box?
Perhaps it couldn't be made soundproof enough... I suppose
distance makes for good soundproofing, and a long wire is
cheaper than an expensively overdesigned box.
Wayne Throop
: Also, phones weren't "unpluggable" then. They were hard-wired into the wall.
: I think the 'phone jack was introduced after the Carterphone decision.
My memory says that, in the era of hardwired phones, our family
phone(s) somehow got rewired with pre-modular-jack 4-prong plugs.
I think they were an allowable standard at the time.
Andrew Plotkin
If your dislike only covers his fiction writing, there's a one-page
article he wrote: <http://www.wilmccarthy.com/nature.pdf>.
"A diffuse lattice of crystalline silicon, superfine threads...
crosscrossing to form a translucent structure with roughly the density
of balsa wood... with the application of electrical currents [to
individual threads], that space can be filled with 'atoms' of any
desired species."
Dorothy J Heydt
>: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>: It was even worse than that. Digging through _Grumbles_ (which I'm
>: not going to do right now), one finds that there was a (either local
>: or FCC) regulation that you *could not* turn the ringer off on a
>: phone. Heinlein wanted to turn his off, and they wouldn't let him,
>: till he put an extension out in the garage and kept the ringer on out
>: there; THEN he was permitted to turn off the one in his office.
>
>Couldn't he just put his phone in a soundproof box?
>Perhaps it couldn't be made soundproof enough...
Apparently not.
I suppose
>distance makes for good soundproofing, and a long wire is
>cheaper than an expensively overdesigned box.
Yes, but he wanted still to be able to use the phone when he
wanted to call out.
Jerry Brown
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
This was still the case with British Telecom well into the eighties. I
can remember wondering if the police were going to break the front
door down each time I plugged my far-East import modem (about a
quarter of the price of the BT-approved item) into my wall socket.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Jerry Brown
wrote:
Programmable matter, which can be commanded to change shape, colour,
texture, etc (but not mass). I'm not sure where the name came from
(and one of the characters wonders as well at one point), since its
default state seems to be flat flexible sheets, IIRC.
It's one of the many background gimmicks introduced in McCarthy's 'The
Collapsium', a futuristic but old-fashioned adventure story featuring
a pioneering scientist/industrialist reluctantly summoned from his
private mini-planet on the fringes of the solar system to save life as
we know it on a number of occasions over the course of the book. I
personally loved it, but found the 2 (so far) sequels to be very
dispiriting affairs in comparison.
If you're prepared to give McCarty another chance, I can highly
recommend the first book, at least.
Ross TenEyck
>tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote in
>news:can9an$5rg$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us:
>> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at
>> the characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where
>> the secret plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the
>> modern read er because we have a word or phrase for the concept?
>> To me, it just dates the story so badly.
>Whereas I love this sort of thing (and really hate the sorts of
>rewrites intended to eliminate them). It's fascinating to me to
>see what a concept looked like to people who were making it up or
>extrapolating from very early data, and how close or far they were
>compared with how things actually worked out.
I remember a Doc Savage story where they devoted a page or so to
describing an ingenious device Doc had invented, where when the
phone rang, a phonograph would play a message stating that Doc
was not available, and then the caller's reply would be recorded
on a blank phonograph.
Aside from using records, rather than tapes, he pretty much hit
the answering machine spot-on.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:canvvs$9qm$1...@naig.caltech.edu:
>...
> I remember a Doc Savage story where they devoted a page or so to
> describing an ingenious device Doc had invented, where when the
> phone rang, a phonograph would play a message stating that Doc
> was not available, and then the caller's reply would be recorded
> on a blank phonograph.
This really existed around 1932, according to
<http://www.recording-history.org/HTML/answering4.htm>. Apparently,
Edison anticipated that use as a possibility when he invented the
phonograph, and he developed a phone recorder using wax cylinders.
(Though the first automatic answering machine, developed circa 1900,
used wire recording.)
Mark Atwood
>
> Turner Classic Movies had a Doctor Kildare movie marathon last night.
> My education having been sadly neglected, I caught several of them.
> (Now I understand the throwaway line in _Blazing Saddles_, where the
> Big Bad looks out the window at the man in the wheelchair about to be
> hanged, and comments "Ah, yes, the Doctor Gillespie murders.")
Since I've never seen a Doctor Kildare movie, could you explain it to me?
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Mark Atwood
> In article <can9an$5rg$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
> Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>As a minor example: I can't find my copy of Heinlein's _Space Cadet_,
>>but near the beginning, Our Boy takes a cell phone call but uses the
>>wrong words to describe it. The only thing I remember is that the
>>phone "sounded". [2]
>
> "Say, isn't that your phone sounding?"
>
> After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
> noise instead.
I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
David Eppstein
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
> > noise instead.
>
> I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
> and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
> instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
service, I mean.
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
David Eppstein
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> >Er, what's wellstone? I don't really care for McCarthy's stuff.
>
> Programmable matter, which can be commanded to change shape, colour,
> texture, etc (but not mass). I'm not sure where the name came from
> (and one of the characters wonders as well at one point), since its
> default state seems to be flat flexible sheets, IIRC.
Name comes from being made out of a 3d array of quantum wells.
Why the stone suffix is less clear to me, though.
Steve Coltrin
> In article <45tuc0h6urbfst2gf...@4ax.com>,
> Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>
>> >Er, what's wellstone? I don't really care for McCarthy's stuff.
>>
>> Programmable matter, which can be commanded to change shape, colour,
>> texture, etc (but not mass). I'm not sure where the name came from
>> (and one of the characters wonders as well at one point), since its
>> default state seems to be flat flexible sheets, IIRC.
>
> Name comes from being made out of a 3d array of quantum wells.
> Why the stone suffix is less clear to me, though.
Parallel to touchstone, Sorc^WPhilosopher's Stone, etc, perhaps.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWJGD?
"I secretly wept on the stairs the night [Reagan] was elected President,
because I understood that the kind of shitheads I had to listen to in the
cafeteria grew up to become voters, and won." - Tim Krieder, _The Pain_
Andrew Plotkin
> begin David Eppstein <epps...@ics.uci.edu> writes:
>
> > In article <45tuc0h6urbfst2gf...@4ax.com>,
> > Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> >
> >> >Er, what's wellstone? I don't really care for McCarthy's stuff.
> >>
> >> Programmable matter, which can be commanded to change shape, colour,
> >> texture, etc (but not mass). I'm not sure where the name came from
> >> (and one of the characters wonders as well at one point), since its
> >> default state seems to be flat flexible sheets, IIRC.
> >
> > Name comes from being made out of a 3d array of quantum wells.
> > Why the stone suffix is less clear to me, though.
>
> Parallel to touchstone, Sorc^WPhilosopher's Stone, etc, perhaps.
Or because it's made of silicon.
Joseph T Major
>tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) writes:
>
>
>>Turner Classic Movies had a Doctor Kildare movie marathon last night.
>>My education having been sadly neglected, I caught several of them.
>>(Now I understand the throwaway line in _Blazing Saddles_, where the
>>Big Bad looks out the window at the man in the wheelchair about to be
>>hanged, and comments "Ah, yes, the Doctor Gillespie murders.")
>>
>>
>
>Since I've never seen a Doctor Kildare movie, could you explain it to me?
>
Wise Old Doctor Gillespie, the mentor of Arisia, er Dr. Kildare,
sits in a wheelchair to deliver his Gnomic Utterances.
The role was written that way so Lionel Barrymore, who was
wheelchair-bound and in hock to the IRS up to his eyebrows, could play
something to get paid to pay off Uncle Sam. That was when he wasn't off
drinking with W. C. Fields and the gang.
Joseph T Major
Keith Thompson
> With modern tech, you'd expect him to have turned the entire phone
> off for at least three reasons. (Battery life, possible
> interference with the air/spacecraft's electronics, and FCC
> regulations intended to prevent one phone in flight from contacting
> and using resources from every cell tower in line of sight.) I
> switches. (It seems obvious, but wired phones didn't have them in
> 1947-- if you wanted to silence a phone, you unplugged it from the
> wall. That Tex didn't just turn his phone off suggests that it may
> not have been so obvious as all that.)
I seem to recall that our phone back in the 1960s, and probably at
least part of the 1970s, couldn't be unplugged without severing the
wires.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
W. Citoan
>
> Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
> service, I mean.
When local calls are free & you don't make enough calls to justify a
nationwide plan, it's better than paying roaming charges on the cell
phone...
- W. Citoan
--
What signature?
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
> > > noise instead.
> >
> > I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
> > and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
> > instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
>
> Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
> service, I mean.
I do. My home phone long distance "service" is a phone card my aunt
bought at Sam's Club. (It's refillable by phone.) Since one accesses the
account by dialing a 800-number, it works just as well in a hotel as at home.
--
Andrew Wheeler
"There's a conflict," he said. "There's a conflict between land and
people. The people have to go. They've come all the way out here to make
mining claims, to do automobile body work, to gamble, to take pictures,
to not have to do laundry, to own a mini-bike, to have their own CB
radios and air conditioning, good plumbing for sure, and to sell
Time-Life books and to work in a deli, to have some chili every morning
and maybe, maybe to own their own gas stations again and take drugs and
have some crazy sex, but above all, above all to have a fair shake, to
get a piece of the rock and a slice of the pie and to spit out the
window of your car and not have the wind blow it back in your face."
- The Call of the West
Paul Ciszek
In article <canjvk$6oo$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <HzD15...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Digression: the latest _Astronomy_ goes on about how the Galilean
>>satellites (other than Io) are covered with ice crusts over deep
>>deep liquid water oceans.
>
>*All*? I'd just heard it about Europa.
>
>
>_Hydroponic Farmer in the Sky._
>
>_Pisciculture in the Sky._
As I recall, in _Farmer in the Sky_, Ganymede had started out with ice,
which was converted into atmosphere and enough water to provide rain
and the occasional pond. I take it that the amount of water we are talking
about, even after some of it was converted into atmosphere, would still
cover the entire moon so that there would be no "land"? Also, if the
mantle is composed of a mixture of ice and rock, then warming up the
entire moon through artificial greenhouse effect (they had a force field
that wouldn't let heat out, if I recall) is a no-no.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
Scott Robinson
A neighbor of mine at the time had purchased several phones abroad,
and taken out the ringers. The idea was that MaBell couldn't
determine the load on the line due to the extra phones if the ringers
weren't in use.
Note that in the US (pre AT&T breakup) you paid rent per phone (and
paid a fat premium if said phone was believed more fancy than the
standard model). Taking out the ringer was done specifically to avoid
this rent.
Scott
PS. After learning a bit of electronics since then, I would be
somewhat surprised if there was any system in place to ensure
compliance. Fear that The Phone Company would take your phone away
kept the people in line.
Andrew Maizels
> It's one of the many background gimmicks introduced in McCarthy's 'The
> Collapsium', a futuristic but old-fashioned adventure story featuring
> a pioneering scientist/industrialist reluctantly summoned from his
> private mini-planet on the fringes of the solar system to save life as
> we know it on a number of occasions over the course of the book. I
> personally loved it, but found the 2 (so far) sequels to be very
> dispiriting affairs in comparison.
That's putting it mildly.
_The Collapsium_ is a joyous Superscience romp. The sequels make
_Bloom_ look utopian.
> If you're prepared to give McCarty another chance, I can highly
> recommend the first book, at least.
Agreed.
Andrew
--
Visit mu.nu! It's crunchy and full of goodness!
http://mu.nu/
Wayne Throop
: I would be somewhat surprised if there was any system in place to
: ensure compliance. Fear that The Phone Company would take your phone
: away kept the people in line.
ObDrJohnnyFever: That's just what the Phone Cops *want* you to think.
Sea Wasp
> In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
>>>noise instead.
>>
>>I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
>>and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
>>instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
>
>
> Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
> service, I mean.
>
I would presume a lot of people do, or they wouldn't keep them. I
certainly use them if I'm in a hotel, which isn't ALL that frequent,
but isn't unheard of either.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Keith Morrison
>> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at the
>> characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
>> plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
>> because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
>> dates the story so badly.
>
>Not exactly what you're asking for, but along the same lines, probably the
>single most stupid plot device in the history of bad movies is from
>Independence Day, where the massively technically advanced aliens needed to
>hijack our sattelite network and beam a countdown to all of their spaceships
>around the world so that they could coordinate their attacks-- evidently,
>they had neglected to invent "clocks".
But it also had one of best scenes in science fiction cinema: when
Will Smith and company first attack, he sees their missiles explode
some distance from the ship with a special effect and instantly grasps
what it means and yells a warning. And the people who hear it *also*
instantly know what it means. No need of an explanation of "Some kind
of energy-based barrier."
--
Keith
James Nicoll
Andrew Maizels <amg...@pixymisa.com> wrote:
>Jerry Brown wrote:
>
>> It's one of the many background gimmicks introduced in McCarthy's 'The
>> Collapsium', a futuristic but old-fashioned adventure story featuring
>> a pioneering scientist/industrialist reluctantly summoned from his
>> private mini-planet on the fringes of the solar system to save life as
>> we know it on a number of occasions over the course of the book. I
>> personally loved it, but found the 2 (so far) sequels to be very
>> dispiriting affairs in comparison.
>
>That's putting it mildly.
>
>_The Collapsium_ is a joyous Superscience romp. The sequels make
>_Bloom_ look utopian.
>
--
"The keywords for tonight are Caution and Flammability."
JFK, _Bubba Ho Tep_
Dorothy J Heydt
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <canjvk$6oo$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <HzD15...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Digression: the latest _Astronomy_ goes on about how the Galilean
>>>satellites (other than Io) are covered with ice crusts over deep
>>>deep liquid water oceans.
>>
>>*All*? I'd just heard it about Europa.
>>
>>> Scratch _Farmer in the Sky._
>>
>>_Hydroponic Farmer in the Sky._
>>
>>_Pisciculture in the Sky._
>
>As I recall, in _Farmer in the Sky_, Ganymede had started out with ice,
>which was converted into atmosphere and enough water to provide rain
>and the occasional pond. I take it that the amount of water we are talking
>about, even after some of it was converted into atmosphere, would still
>cover the entire moon so that there would be no "land"?
If you took all the existing ice and turned it into atmosphere,
there would still be an ocean <eyeballs the illustration again>
about a third of a Ganymedan radius deep.
Also, if the
>mantle is composed of a mixture of ice and rock, then warming up the
>entire moon through artificial greenhouse effect (they had a force field
>that wouldn't let heat out, if I recall) is a no-no.
The mixture of ice and rock is Callisto. Ganymede appears to
have a real rocky mantle under its ocean.
But yeah, if you warmed it up enough for it to be habitable by
Terrans, it would be the kind of ocean world you get e.g. in
_Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus._
Dorothy J Heydt
David Eppstein <epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
>> > noise instead.
>>
>> I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
>> and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
>> instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
>
>Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
>service, I mean.
Only if I can't avoid it... someone has called and left a message
I actually need to return, e.g. This has happened IIRC once in
the last five years.
Tim McDaniel
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:03:25 +0000, Glenn Dowdy wrote:
>> "Aaron Denney" <wno...@ofb.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnccuj9t...@ofb.net...
>>>
>>> <handwave>
>>> Relativistic effects made them drift during the flight here.
>>> <nitpick>
>>> Ignore the fact that they could then resynchronize.
>>> </nitpick>
>>> </handwave>
>>>
>> But they were in different time zones.
>
>Were any of them in the time zones that are half an hour different?
>That would really muck up their synchronization.
Worse: one was in Saudi Arabian time. It's pure solar (at Mecca, I
think). The UNIX time zone adjustment table for the Saudi Arabian
time zone is nightmarishly long and, being predictive, slightly
inaccurate.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
James Gassaway
news:HzDry...@kithrup.com...
>
> But yeah, if you warmed it up enough for it to be habitable by
> Terrans, it would be the kind of ocean world you get e.g. in
> _Lucky Starr and the Oceans of Venus._
>
So all the Golden Age SF writers did have it right, they just set their
stories on the wrong planetary body? :P
--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
Ross TenEyck
>> I remember a Doc Savage story where they devoted a page or so to
>> describing an ingenious device Doc had invented, where when the
>> phone rang, a phonograph would play a message stating that Doc
>> was not available, and then the caller's reply would be recorded
>> on a blank phonograph.
>This really existed around 1932, according to
><http://www.recording-history.org/HTML/answering4.htm>. Apparently,
>Edison anticipated that use as a possibility when he invented the
>phonograph, and he developed a phone recorder using wax cylinders.
>(Though the first automatic answering machine, developed circa 1900,
>used wire recording.)
Huh. Did not know that.
It's possible that whoever was writing the Doc Savage books by that
point didn't either; my recollection is that it was presented as a
marvelous and innovative invention of Doc's own.
Bill Westfield
> service, I mean.
I do. My home phone long distance "service" is a phone card my aunt
bought at Sam's Club. (It's refillable by phone.) Since one accesses the
account by dialing a 800-number, it works just as well in a hotel
Some hotels now charge for 800-number "toll free calls." I've seen at least
two schemes, one where each 800 call is a fixed price (ie $0.50), and one
where 800 calls exceeding a certain duration start to be charged by the
minute (that one hurt, considering the 800- dialin access number my employer
provided.) Very annoying. Although I'm somewhat sympathetic with the
hotels, actually; the 800 call consumes the same amount of THEIR resources
as a normal toll call...
BillW
David Tate
> > I'm not going to do right now), one finds that there was a
> > (either local or FCC) regulation that you *could not* turn the
> > ringer off on a phone. Heinlein wanted to turn his off, and
> > they wouldn't let him, till he put an extension out in the
> > garage and kept the ringer on out there; THEN he was permitted
> > to turn off the one in his office.
>
> It might have also been an AT&T policy-- they were fairly imperious
> during their monopoly days, and their agents and the FBI were both
> sometimes fairly hazy on the difference between phone company
> directives and the law. (They also dragged their heels on allowing
> anything not owned by them to be connected to the phone network for
> decades on the grounds that it might be dangerous to the system.
> The Rube Goldberg-style answering machines familiar to anyone who
> watched "The Rockford Files" was one attempt to work around the
> problem; the acoustic modem was another.)
IIRC, AT&T had to lose a court case before they would permit fax
traffic to be carried on their lines.
As with the acoustic coupler, they had a very real business concern --
all of their mathematical models for how many circuits would be
required to carry the load on a trunk line were based on certain
assumptions about the distribution of call times. Faxes (in one
direction) and modems (in the other) blow those assumptions out of the
water. That's not to say that I approve of their efforts to nix them;
just that I understand them.
Also remember that public utilities (remember them?) operate under
different rules than ordinary private companies, for a reason.
Privatization and deregulation have been going on long enough that we
forget that AT&T essentially *was* the government, when it came to
phone system policy. Subject to Congressional or judicial veto, of
course, like any other federal regulations.
David Tate
Dreamer
news:40CFB1CC...@wizvax.net...
> David Eppstein wrote:
> > In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> > Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
> >>>noise instead.
> >>
> >>I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
> >>and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
> >>instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
> >
> >
> > Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
> > service, I mean.
> >
>
> I would presume a lot of people do, or they wouldn't keep them. I
> certainly use them if I'm in a hotel, which isn't ALL that frequent,
> but isn't unheard of either.
As do I. If nothing else, they're very useful for summoning extra towels and
whatnot.
D
-><-
Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
Tim McDaniel
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> writes:
>>This really existed around 1932, according to
>><http://www.recording-history.org/HTML/answering4.htm>. Apparently,
>>Edison anticipated that use as a possibility when he invented the
>>phonograph, and he developed a phone recorder using wax cylinders.
>>(Though the first automatic answering machine, developed circa 1900,
>>used wire recording.)
>
>Huh. Did not know that.
Did you know that the fax machine predates the telephone? Matthew
Brady faxed his US Civil War photos to newspapers over telegraph
lines.
Michael Stemper
>Did you know that the fax machine predates the telephone? Matthew
>Brady faxed his US Civil War photos to newspapers over telegraph
>lines.
<boggle> How the hell did he scan them? And input them? Was there an
equivalent to the modem, or did some operator visually scan the photo,
with somebody drawing it at the other end?
I guess that this makes Verne's prediction of the fax in _Paris at the
End of the Twentieth Century_ a little less impressive.
--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/sf-written.htm
Please read it before posting.
Garrett Wollman
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>Worse: one was in Saudi Arabian time. It's pure solar (at Mecca, I
>think). The UNIX time zone adjustment table for the Saudi Arabian
>time zone is nightmarishly long and, being predictive, slightly
>inaccurate.
Actually, the timezone database no longer makes any effort at
representing what officially goes on in Saudi Arabia,[1] since their
civil calendar is not Gregorian, or even Julian, but a funky
solar-zodiacal system that isn't zoned at all. Instead, the timezone
database reflects "Arabian Standard Time", which is what commercial
Saudi Arabia uses.
-GAWollman
[1] And hasn't since about 1989.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those of| search for greater freedom.
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. ___ (2003)
Bryan Derksen
Stemper) wrote:
>In article <caoq98$9lm$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>, Tim McDaniel writes:
>>Did you know that the fax machine predates the telephone? Matthew
>>Brady faxed his US Civil War photos to newspapers over telegraph
>>lines.
>
><boggle> How the hell did he scan them? And input them? Was there an
>equivalent to the modem, or did some operator visually scan the photo,
>with somebody drawing it at the other end?
>
>I guess that this makes Verne's prediction of the fax in _Paris at the
>End of the Twentieth Century_ a little less impressive.
I saw a documentary once that showed how such a contraption worked. It
had a horizontal platform where the photo to be scanned would be
mounted and a large pendulum hanging over it with a photosensitive
scan head on the end. The pendulum would be set swinging back and
forth over the platform, and a clockwork mechanism would move the
platform along under it one scan-line per swing. The result was an
analogue electrical current encoding the darkness of the image along
the scan lines. At the other end of the line, an identical device with
a marker instead of a sensor on its arm would be set up to transcribe
the image onto a blank sheet. It was apparently very tricky getting
the two pendulums to swing exactly in phase with each other, there
didn't seem to be a mechanism to do that automatically.
It was pretty low-resolution, but for newspaper images I guess it was
fine.
Wayne Throop
::: service, I mean.
:: I would presume a lot of people do, or they wouldn't keep them. I
:: certainly use them if I'm in a hotel, which isn't ALL that frequent,
:: but isn't unheard of either.
: "Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com>
: As do I. If nothing else, they're very useful for summoning
: extra towels and whatnot.
This sub-subthread originates in the above ":::" quoted line,
"uses other than calling room service". So, summoning extra towels
and whatnot (or wake-up calls, or calling the front desk for messages
or questions, and so forth) most reasonably comes under the
category of "room service".
On the other hand, towels, wake-up calls, dinners, concierge, etc, etc,
would explain why the phones are still there. Once they are there,
adding an external line to the available functions has quite low marginal
cost, I'd think.
Elsethread, somebody mentioned IP access and the advent of charging
for access to toll-free calls... I note that all the hotels I've stayed
in recently have gotten DSL, and some of them 802.11b wireless, in
most rooms. ( I say "dsl", because they are using dsl-style modems
over the existing phone wiring; it isn't quite "dsl" as in "isp through
legacy phone wiring infrastructure", though the method is the same
for the same reason ). Not quite at Motel 6 yet, but in lots of
places now. "We'll leave the ethernet up for you."
Glenn Dowdy
"David Eppstein" <epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote in message
news:eppstein-E927BC...@news.service.uci.edu...
> In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
> > > noise instead.
> >
> > I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
> > and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
> > instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
>
> service, I mean.
>
Sentosa in Singapore or the Grand Hyatt Shanghai when I have a perfectly
nice calling card that Carly pays for.
Glenn D.
David Johnston
>In article <m2u0xct...@amsu.blackfedora.com>,
> Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > After all, phones seldom "ring" any more, they make some other
>> > noise instead.
>>
>> I'm starting to see instructions for using hotel phones, desk phones,
>> and the manuals for landline phones and celphones using the verb "touch"
>> instead of "dial" for the action of pushing a sequence of buttons.
>
>Does anyone use hotel phones any more? Other than for calling room
>service, I mean.
Of course. How else am I going to get pizza?
Chad Irby
rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me to make
a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls than to use the
hotel room phone.
It's interesting checking into hotels now, since I don't want to let
them have a credit card for "incidentals" (no phone, and to hell with
the mini-bar), due to too many years of places trying to charge my card
for everything under the sun (and often the room itself, even though the
company or the client paid for the room ahead of time). When "The
Breakers" tried to hit me for a week's room rent (over two grand), I
stopped giving them my card numbers.
--
cirby at cfl.rr.com
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
Robert Carnegie
<ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> writes
>
>
>I remember a Doc Savage story where they devoted a page or so to
>describing an ingenious device Doc had invented, where when the
>phone rang, a phonograph would play a message stating that Doc
>was not available, and then the caller's reply would be recorded
>on a blank phonograph.
>
>the answering machine spot-on.
And it shows up in the 1970s _Doc Savage_ movie - only as a
cute bit at the end, I think. The machine takes a phone call from
one of Doc's team who gets slugged while he's speaking, and
presumably the game is once again afoot. Cue credits and
stirring song.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
Robert Carnegie
Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> writes
>In article <caoq98$9lm$1...@tmcd.austin.tx.us>, Tim McDaniel writes:
>
>>Did you know that the fax machine predates the telephone? Matthew
>>Brady faxed his US Civil War photos to newspapers over telegraph
>>lines.
>
><boggle> How the hell did he scan them? And input them? Was there
>an
>equivalent to the modem, or did some operator visually scan the photo,
>with somebody drawing it at the other end?
>
>I guess that this makes Verne's prediction of the fax in _Paris at the
>End of the Twentieth Century_ a little less impressive.
Too right it does. I understand the description given is accurate,
and they also had them in France.
But I've also seen a 30s/40s crime movie, monochrome anyway,
where a similar device for sending U.S. criminals' photographs
clear across the country was a wonder of American know-how
and, I presume, federal agency high-tech, or possibly the phone
company's. A large-ish portrait photo was wrapped around a
rapidly rotating cylinder, and the scanning device set in motion.
I've no idea whether this device was real. The signal travelled at
nearly the speed of light, of course, but apparently took at least
several minutes to produce one picture - and I'm not sure how it
was printed at the other end; perhaps by illuminating
photosensitive film, so they'd then have to develop the picture all
over again, with the usual mess of chemicals.
And yes, the modern audience reaction is, "Oh look, a fax
machine."
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>And yes, the modern audience reaction is, "Oh look, a fax
>machine."
Hm. There were fax machines capable of sending photographs from
one city to another several years before World War *One*; the
first primitive version dates back to the 1840s.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, cunctator maximus. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Sea Wasp
> I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me to make
> a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls than to use the
> hotel room phone.
>
I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
phone).
Glenn Dowdy
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me to make
> > a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls than to use the
> > hotel room phone.
> >
>
> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
> assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
> probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
> phone).
>
Glenn D.
James Nicoll
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>In article <canvvs$9qm$1...@naig.caltech.edu>, Ross TenEyck
><ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> writes
>>
>>I remember a Doc Savage story where they devoted a page or so to
>>describing an ingenious device Doc had invented, where when the
>>phone rang, a phonograph would play a message stating that Doc
>>was not available, and then the caller's reply would be recorded
>>on a blank phonograph.
>>
>>Aside from using records, rather than tapes, he pretty much hit
>>the answering machine spot-on.
>
>And it shows up in the 1970s _Doc Savage_ movie - only as a
>cute bit at the end, I think. The machine takes a phone call from
>one of Doc's team who gets slugged while he's speaking, and
>presumably the game is once again afoot. Cue credits and
>stirring song.
and crew run into the miracle of _indirect lighting_! What's far more
interesting from their point of view is that whoever installed the lights
did so during the last ice age and that the lights are totally cold,
emitting only in the visible spectrum.
Unfortunately they eventually discover a catch: the process
powering the lights is despite appearances fantastically inefficient,
and it wouldn't be practical for us to use them without the power source,
which runs off the energy inherent in a glacier the size of a state park,
sliding towards the ocean.
James Nicoll
1: Like Doc Savage, Richard Benson is the leader of a group, one collectively
known as Justice Incorporated [2]. Like Savage, Benson has fantastic skills
and gifts. Unlike Doc Savage, he isn't actually good at everything (he has
a real blind spot where staying alive is concerned) and unlike Doc's minion,
Benson's associates are each better at what they do than Benson or indeed
most people would be.
2: I mistyped this as Justine Incorporated, which would be different.
Aaron Denney
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me to make
>> a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls than to use the
>> hotel room phone.
>>
>
> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
> assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
> probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
> phone).
"You mean plugged into the wall?"
Seriously, in what manner should they work the same as your
home phone?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Wayne Throop
: I've also seen a 30s/40s crime movie, monochrome anyway, where a
: similar device for sending U.S. criminals' photographs clear across
: the country was a wonder of American know-how and, I presume, federal
: agency high-tech, or possibly the phone company's. A large-ish
: portrait photo was wrapped around a rapidly rotating cylinder, and the
: scanning device set in motion. I've no idea whether this device was
: real. The signal travelled at nearly the speed of light, of course,
: but apparently took at least several minutes to produce one picture -
: and I'm not sure how it was printed at the other end; perhaps by
: illuminating photosensitive film, so they'd then have to develop the
: picture all over again, with the usual mess of chemicals. And yes,
: the modern audience reaction is, "Oh look, a fax machine."
ISTR it was actual. This vague memory is reinforced by a quick google
on the phrase "wire photo", augmented by some key words...
http://members.fortunecity.com/jasonhegert/jason_hegertswebpage.htm
which says in part
In 1925, Edouard Belin (1876-1963) in France constructed the
Belinograph. His invention involved placing an image on a cylinder
and scanning it with a powerful light beam that had a photoelectric
cell which could convert light, or the absence of light, into
transmittable electrical impulses. The Belinograph process used the
basic principle upon which all subsequent facsimile transmission
machines would be based. In 1934, the Associated Press introduced
the first system for routinely transmitting "wire photos," and 30
years later, in 1964, the Xerox Corporation introduced Long Distance
Xerography (LDX).
Sadly, that doesn't say how it was reproduced at the other end,
ISTR that it was reproduced in real-time, no extra development process;
I have a vague memory of the image appearing on a synchronized cylinder
in much the same way that images "paint down" on a slow web connection.
But I don't trust that memory; I suspect I may have confabulated it.
Or I may be confusing it with some later xerographic process. Hrm.
Maybe it was done by wet-copying, like a mimeograph, only more direct?
Oh, I dunno.
In any event, yes, fax-like gadgets appear starting in the 1840s.
They just didn't catch on widely, other than police and news distribution
of images, until maybe the 1970s or so.
Michael S. Schiffer
> Chad Irby wrote:
>> I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me
>> to make a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls
>> than to use the hotel room phone.
> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a
> default
> assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
> probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my
> home phone).
I don't doubt you, but at this point more than 2/3 of US households
and rising have at least one cell phone[1], and the percentage is
probably much greater among the population that posts to Usenet.
It's reaching the point of being a reasonable default assumption,
albeit a rebuttable one.
It's also reached the point where, like someone not having an e-
mail address or an answering machine or various other optional
communications tools, the lack can be perceived as a positive
inconvenience for others. (One friend of mine went so far as to
buy a mutual friend a cell phone and a pack of minutes, more or
less for this reason.)
Mike
[1]I note that the percentages are even higher in other countries,
mostly because if I don't there'll be a flurry of replies twitting
us for our backwardness. :-)
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Wayne Throop
: I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
: assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
: probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
: phone).
You mean, until they can be plugged into the wall via modular phone jacks?
Or, until they have a separate handset from the keypad? Or that attackers
can easily disable it before attempting entry to your home? Or that it
is billed with a relatively simple fee structure? Or just what aspect
of your home phone is missing?
As for me, I use a digital wireless phone at home, so that's really
not much different than a cell phone, but with a bigger battery
pack... except that the house is in a cell blind spot. Can you say
"can you hear me now?"? Have to walk to the top of a nearby hill
to use the cell phone reliably. That would be a pain, if I were
to give up the wired service.
how...@brazee.net
On 16-Jun-2004, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
> assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
> probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
> phone).
When my wife almost died in an automobile, but was saved by cell-phones, I
got us some. It's expensive for the little use I get out of it, but if I
can pay back my debt, it will be worth it.
Sea Wasp
> "You mean plugged into the wall?"
>
> Seriously, in what manner should they work the same as your
> home phone?
>
Pay one low price, talk all I want for no additional fee, calls
not be practical to intercept, be able to take whatever phone I have
and use whatever service I want, rather than have to use a Verizon
phone with only Verizon service, switch services whenever I want, no
additional fees.
Of course, if I ever get one, I won't let anyone know, because I
don't want to give up the great advantage of NOT having one.
Sea Wasp
> It's also reached the point where, like someone not having an e-
> mail address or an answering machine or various other optional
> communications tools, the lack can be perceived as a positive
> inconvenience for others. (One friend of mine went so far as to
> buy a mutual friend a cell phone and a pack of minutes, more or
> less for this reason.)
I would tell such a friend that I do not want it and will not use
it, and will, if forced to take it, lock it in a drawer in the cellar.
Sea Wasp
> : Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> : I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
> : assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
> : probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
> : phone).
>
> You mean, until they can be plugged into the wall via modular phone jacks?
> Or, until they have a separate handset from the keypad? Or that attackers
> can easily disable it before attempting entry to your home? Or that it
> is billed with a relatively simple fee structure? Or just what aspect
> of your home phone is missing?
See other reply.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person how...@brazee.net said
Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I have a
cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for emergencies. They
cost all of $100 or something, including $25 worth of calls. OK, calls
are expensive (20 cents a minute or something outrageous) but I expect
to be buried before I get through the initial $25.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Dorothy J Heydt
>Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me to make
>> a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls than to use the
>> hotel room phone.
>
> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a default
>assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
>probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my home
>phone).
Whereas I don't have one, never have, either, and probably never
will since I'm home virtually all the time and the landline is
right here by my med.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
how...@brazee.net
On 16-Jun-2004, GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >When my wife almost died in an automobile, but was saved by cell-phones,
> >I
> >got us some. It's expensive for the little use I get out of it, but if I
> >can pay back my debt, it will be worth it.
>
> Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I have a
> cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for emergencies. They
> cost all of $100 or something, including $25 worth of calls. OK, calls
> are expensive (20 cents a minute or something outrageous) but I expect
> to be buried before I get through the initial $25.
I believe this is possible. Someone who doesn't want to be called should
consider this option - spending $100 now to possibly save someone's life
would be worth it - especially if that someone is in your car.
My wife uses our phones for long distance though as the cheapest way of
doing the amount she calls her mom.
I also had a heart attack on a golf course. I didn't know it at the time,
but my wife wants me to carry my phone in my bag in case I need to call for
help.
Michael S. Schiffer
> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>> It's also reached the point where, like someone not having an
>> e- mail address or an answering machine or various other
>> optional communications tools, the lack can be perceived as a
>> positive inconvenience for others. (One friend of mine went so
>> far as to buy a mutual friend a cell phone and a pack of
>> minutes, more or less for this reason.)
> I would tell such a friend that I do not want it and will not
> use it, and will, if forced to take it, lock it in a drawer in
> the cellar.
I think you may be confusing them with horror movie monsters. Cell
phones do have an off switch, after all-- locking them in the cellar
is overkill.
(Unless it's a cursed cell phone, of course. But in that case, you
know very well that locking it in a drawer isn't going to do you any
good.)
Mike
Michael S. Schiffer
news:X3gS$sCHxM...@from.is.invalid:
>...
> Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I
> have a cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for
> emergencies. They cost all of $100 or something, including $25
> worth of calls. OK, calls are expensive (20 cents a minute or
> something outrageous) but I expect to be buried before I get
> through the initial $25.
Those exist here as well.
Bill Snyder
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
"And then, after that blessed moment of silence, it came again. The
_tones_, Ashton, the horrible, horrible beeping of the _tones_ . . ."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
David E. Siegel
> Does anyone have examples of works where you want to shout at the
> characters "It's only a simple _____, you morons!", where the secret
> plot twist (laboriously explained) is obvious to the modern reader
> because we have a word or phrase for the concept? To me, it just
> dates the story so badly.
>
<snip>
>
> In _Doctor Kildare Goes Home_, the solution to the doctor moving out
> of a small Connecticut town is posited as the townspeople each paying
> a group of doctors 10 cents a week, for which they get free care. To
> cut costs, the doctors will use preventive medicine [1]. Any modern
> American worker instantly thinks "doctor-managed HMO" (Health
> Maintenance Organization). But in the movie, it has to be explained in
> detail, and the closest they get to the modern concept is "It's like
> life insurance". Even the words "health insurance" don't occur to
> anyone.
>
Whic is particualrly odd sine more or less that system was already in
existance, at least in UK mining towns (fees handled as a payroll
deduction, doctors hired by the mining company or by an miner's
committtee, depending) and perhaps in other places.
<snip>
-DES
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
> news:40D0CB48...@wizvax.net:
>
>
>>Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>
>
>>>It's also reached the point where, like someone not having an
>>>e- mail address or an answering machine or various other
>>>optional communications tools, the lack can be perceived as a
>>>positive inconvenience for others. (One friend of mine went so
>>>far as to buy a mutual friend a cell phone and a pack of
>>>minutes, more or less for this reason.)
>>
>
>
>>I would tell such a friend that I do not want it and will not
>>use it, and will, if forced to take it, lock it in a drawer in
>>the cellar.
>
>
> I think you may be confusing them with horror movie monsters. Cell
> phones do have an off switch, after all-- locking them in the cellar
> is overkill.
Switching it off isn't sufficient. If you are known to have one,
people become quite annoyed if you switch it off. The concept is that
if you have one, you're available anywhere. I prefer to be available
only when I feel like it. I don't even particularly like phones
themselves. Cell phones are ANNOYING. My wife has one because she
takes care of our two kids and doesn't want to be stranded somewhere
without contact. I grit my teeth and tolerate that one for that reason.
how...@brazee.net
On 16-Jun-2004, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> Switching it off isn't sufficient. If you are known to have one,
> people become quite annoyed if you switch it off. The concept is that
> if you have one, you're available anywhere. I prefer to be available
> only when I feel like it. I don't even particularly like phones
> themselves. Cell phones are ANNOYING. My wife has one because she
> takes care of our two kids and doesn't want to be stranded somewhere
> without contact. I grit my teeth and tolerate that one for that reason.
Why should someone call my cell phone number? The only person who has
called it is my son in a mall when I am carrying around his son and he wants
to find us.
Sea Wasp
> Why should someone call my cell phone number? The only person who has
> called it is my son in a mall when I am carrying around his son and he wants
> to find us.
Exactly why, if I ever have one, I will tell virtually no one that
I do. If it DOES ever get used, I want it to be a call that I really
DO need to get regardless of where I may be.
Michael S. Schiffer
> Michael S. Schiffer wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
>> news:40D0CB48...@wizvax.net:
>...
>>>I would tell such a friend that I do not want it and will not
>>>use it, and will, if forced to take it, lock it in a drawer in
>>>the cellar.
>> I think you may be confusing them with horror movie monsters.
>> Cell phones do have an off switch, after all-- locking them in
>> the cellar is overkill.
> Switching it off isn't sufficient. If you are known to have
> one,
> people become quite annoyed if you switch it off.
I've had a cell phone for nearly a decade, and I haven't run into
this. Among other things, people are aware that cell phones
sometimes don't get reception. So if they don't get an answer,
they have no way of distinguishing between the conditions of a)
I've turned the phone off, b) I'm screening calls using the Caller-
ID function, c) I have the ringer off and have missed the vibrate
signal, d) I'm underground, in my office, or some other place where
cell signals don't penetrate, or e) some other network glitch is
preventing me from receiving calls right at the moment.
Fortunately, my cell phone has voice mail, which lets me return
those calls I care to on my schedule. Plausible deniability is if
anything easier than with a wired phone, and in any case I make no
pretext that I will always answer my phone no matter what the
circumstances. If I'm talking to someone, if I'm working, if I'm
driving, or if I don't feel like it, I'm under no obligation to
answer the phone.
On the other hand, it's invaluable if I'm meeting someone and one
of us is lost and needs directions. Or if one of us is late and
wants to tell the other to go in and get seats. Or if we're
meeting in a crowd and are trying to link up. (It's incredibly
liberating not to have to wait around at a landmark forever because
that was your prearranged meeting place, and if you leave you'll
never find each other.) Or if I forgot something and want to ask
my wife to bring it with her.
Last week, a friend of ours without a cell phone felt she had to
stay home all afternoon because people had been told to call her to
ask when a barbecue she and her husband had planned would be. With
a cell phone, she could have gone anywhere. And when my car broke
down a few weeks ago on a Sunday evening and I limped to the
parking lot of a closed building, I could call AAA without having
to hike to a phone.
The concept is
> that if you have one, you're available anywhere. I prefer to be
> available only when I feel like it.
There's nothing remotely incompatible between this idea and having
a cell phone. You don't have to answer. You don't even have to
have the ringer on when you don't feel like being reachable by
anyone. Or you can use Caller-ID (and distinctive rings, if you
choose) and be reachable only by some people but not others. On
the other hand, when you want to be available, you don't have to
tie yourself to a location to do so.
I don't even particularly
> like phones themselves. Cell phones are ANNOYING. My wife has
> one because she takes care of our two kids and doesn't want to
> be stranded somewhere without contact. I grit my teeth and
> tolerate that one for that reason.
Obviously, it's your call (no pun intended). But the possession of
a phone doesn't have to dictate the way you use it.
Wayne Throop
: If you are known to have one, people become quite annoyed if you
: switch it off. The concept is that if you have one, you're available
: anywhere.
Yeah, well, tough cheese. Somebody wants to get in touch with me,
I simply tell 'em the best way, and probably fastest, is to use email.
Or you can leave a message on my land-line phone. If you absolutely,
positively, must get in touch with me for a real-time discussion that
you can't schedule with me via email first... well, if it's all that
urgent, you can call the cops to track me down.
Which would be easy, since I'm almost always right here, and not hard to
find, and my habits not unpredictable in the least, but it's the principle
of the thing; and I do turn off my phone/pager upon occasion. So there.
Actually... most of the cell-phone users I interact with to any
significant degree are of the younger generation. And growing up with
cell phones, quite often turn them off so their parents can't nag them
(shades of Between Planets). So it's possible that the issue is one
left over from the wired phones era, where calls were infrequent, and the
standard assumption was that if it was a call, it was important. Today,
most calls to private phones are trivial, so that expectation is changing.
Wayne Throop
: I make no pretext that I will always answer my phone no matter what
: the circumstances. If I'm talking to someone, if I'm working, if I'm
: driving, or if I don't feel like it, I'm under no obligation to answer
: the phone.
Right.
: On the other hand, it's invaluable if I'm meeting someone and one of us
: is lost and needs directions.
Also right. One of the few cases I'm sure to monitor my pager/phone
and answer it reliably, is if I've arranged with somebody or somebodies
for a coordinated activity. Ie, use it like walkie-talkie and/or
tactical comm. But when not on such a mission it doesn't get answered,
so that people get trained not to call me on it. That way, I won't
be constantly interrupted when I *am* paying attention to it.
Dreamer
aN3Ac.7408$Wr....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net, "how...@brazee.net"
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
A cell phone, like a gun, can be a blasted nuisance to tote around almost
all of the time. But, again like a gun, when you need one, you *really* need
one, and there are no practical substitutes.
I have one, and I carry it most places I go, but it's almost always turned
off.
D
Mark Atwood
> If you are known to have one,
> people become quite annoyed if you switch it off. The concept is that
> if you have one, you're available anywhere.
They do? It does?
Not in my experience, and I've carried a cellphone almost daily for
over 5yr now.
It's matter of course and matter of fact, that one doesn't answer
one's phone all the time. People turn their phones off all the time.
And even when they don't, it's *very* common for someone to pull their
handset out when it buzzes or beeps, look at the display to see who's
calling, and send the call to voicemail, to be dealt with later.
It seems to me that you are making the same mistake that Keith often
makes, you are seeing something that many people around you have or
do, that you do not, for some reason, and you are completely
misinterpreting or misjudging how that something is done, out of
baffled ignorance.
Not all, not even most, cellphone users take every call while in
theaters, in meetings, while driving whereever. Not all talk really
loudly. Not all are reachable 24/7 for personal calls. Just the
rude ones, which you are seeing and remembering, and overgeneralizing.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Paul F Austin
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:10874...@sheol.org...
If you watch the old Steve McQueen "Bullit", you'll see it in action.
Keith Morrison
>But I've also seen a 30s/40s crime movie, monochrome anyway,
>where a similar device for sending U.S. criminals' photographs
>clear across the country was a wonder of American know-how
>and, I presume, federal agency high-tech, or possibly the phone
>company's. A large-ish portrait photo was wrapped around a
>rapidly rotating cylinder, and the scanning device set in motion.
>I've no idea whether this device was real. The signal travelled at
>nearly the speed of light, of course, but apparently took at least
>several minutes to produce one picture - and I'm not sure how it
>was printed at the other end; perhaps by illuminating
>photosensitive film, so they'd then have to develop the picture all
>over again, with the usual mess of chemicals.
>
>And yes, the modern audience reaction is, "Oh look, a fax
>machine."
The scene in _Bullitt_ where everyone stands around anxiously as a
teletype prints out a really bad b&w photo that reveals the major plot
point.
The scene lasts a few minutes. I always find it charmingly ancient.
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
>> Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I have a
>> cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for emergencies. They
>> cost all of $100 or something, including $25 worth of calls. OK, calls
>> are expensive (20 cents a minute or something outrageous) but I expect
>> to be buried before I get through the initial $25.
>
>I believe this is possible. Someone who doesn't want to be called should
>consider this option - spending $100 now to possibly save someone's life
>would be worth it - especially if that someone is in your car.
>
>My wife uses our phones for long distance though as the cheapest way of
>doing the amount she calls her mom.
>
>I also had a heart attack on a golf course. I didn't know it at the time,
>but my wife wants me to carry my phone in my bag in case I need to call for
>help.
Some of the Canadian pay as you go plans have 911 calls as a free
feature.
--
Keith
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
> The concept is
>
>>that if you have one, you're available anywhere. I prefer to be
>>available only when I feel like it.
>
>
> There's nothing remotely incompatible between this idea and having
> a cell phone. You don't have to answer.
1) If your boss can never reach you on the cell phone, he knows
you're ignoring him. If you don't HAVE a cell phone, this isn't an issue.
2) Not answer a phone? This is as alien a concept as not watching the
TV if it's on. I know people who do this -- use a TV as background --
but it's utterly impossible for me.
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jun 2004 22:50:16 GMT, "Michael S. Schiffer"
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote in
>news:X3gS$sCHxM...@from.is.invalid:
>>...
>> Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I
>> have a cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for
>> emergencies. They cost all of $100 or something, including $25
>> worth of calls. OK, calls are expensive (20 cents a minute or
>> something outrageous) but I expect to be buried before I get
>> through the initial $25.
>
>Those exist here as well.
>
>Mike
I don't currently have a cell phone, but am considering getting one.
Since I don't make or receive that many phone calls, I have been
debating whether to get a regular plan (so many minutes per month) or
a prepaid plan. However, all of the prepaid plans that I have looked
at require you to buy a minimum number of minutes on a regular basis
(generally, $20 to $25 every three months) in order to keep up your
service. If you don't buy another set of minutes by the deadline,
you don't lose the minutes you already have purchased, but can't use
the phone until you buy more minutes. You can also buy an annual
membership, but this is an additional cost added onto the minutes
themselves.
As far as I know, all cell phone providers in the USA are required to
allow calls to 911 (emergency services, generally covering police,
fire, and ambulance), even from phones not associated with active
accounts. However, 911 services only cover life-threatening
emergencies. If your car breaks down on a back road, you can use an
otherwise-inactive phone to call for help if you are in danger of
freezing to death, but you can't call a tow truck.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQNETKTMYPge5L34aEQLa2ACg9OWO24/dgl39gvTnr4f34+v+zgUAn3iq
7k2YsLt9t0Tza3EC7iOVQZQj
=DMbZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
David Dyer-Bennet
By law in the US, a cell phone must *always* be able to call 911 even
if it has no valid service plan. So you can buy a really cheap cell
phone and get no service on it, and still be able to call 911 if you
need to.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
What a bizarre world you do live in. I've had a cell phone since
something like 1991, have not been terribly stingy with the number,
and *still* don't have any problem with people becoming annoyed if
I've switched it off or not taken it with me. Maybe you need a better
class of friend?
Meanwhile, my cell phone has allowed me to do innumerable things I
couldn't have otherwise because I needed to be accessible by phone.
It's also tremendously useful when meeting people places, for dinner,
conventions, fairs and festivals, or whatever. If I'm lost on the way
to the restaurant I can call the people waiting for me and let them
know I'm late, and perhaps get help finding the place (if they know
the area).
Chris Kuan
> (Unless it's a cursed cell phone, of course. But in that case, you
> know very well that locking it in a drawer isn't going to do you any
> good.)
But what about chopping it into little bits, then locking those bits
in separate boxes, then sending those boxes in different directions...
whoops; wrong thread.
--
Chris
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
>
>> how...@brazee.net wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't you have 'pay as you go' tariffs in the USA? My wife and I have a
>>>> cell phone each, usually kept in the cars, mostly for emergencies. They
>>>> cost all of $100 or something, including $25 worth of calls. OK, calls
>>>> are expensive (20 cents a minute or something outrageous) but I expect
>>>> to be buried before I get through the initial $25.
>>>
>>>I believe this is possible. Someone who doesn't want to be called should
>>>consider this option - spending $100 now to possibly save someone's life
>>>would be worth it - especially if that someone is in your car.
>>>
>>>My wife uses our phones for long distance though as the cheapest way of
>>>doing the amount she calls her mom.
>>>
>>>I also had a heart attack on a golf course. I didn't know it at the time,
>>>but my wife wants me to carry my phone in my bag in case I need to call for
>>>help.
>>
>> Some of the Canadian pay as you go plans have 911 calls as a free
>> feature.
>
>By law in the US, a cell phone must *always* be able to call 911 even
>if it has no valid service plan. So you can buy a really cheap cell
>phone and get no service on it, and still be able to call 911 if you
>need to.
Which isn't all that useful, since cell phones don't have a fixed
address with them, and the 911 center they call may not be the
closest, thus wasting valuable time while things get coordinated.
I've been told it's much better to put the actual phone number for the
closest police station, fire station, and hospital into the speed-dial
memory, so that you can be sure of getting the local emergency
services when you need them.
Rebecca
r.r...@thevine.net
<msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>
>>> I noticed a year or so back that it was actually cheaper for me
>>> to make a "long distance" call with my cell for local calls
>>> than to use the hotel room phone.
>
>> I find it interesting that it appears people are making a
>> default
>> assumption of "has cell phone". I don't have one, never had, and
>> probably never will (at least until they can work the same as my
>> home phone).
>
>I don't doubt you, but at this point more than 2/3 of US households
>and rising have at least one cell phone[1], and the percentage is
>probably much greater among the population that posts to Usenet.
>It's reaching the point of being a reasonable default assumption,
>albeit a rebuttable one.
>
>It's also reached the point where, like someone not having an e-
>mail address or an answering machine or various other optional
>communications tools, the lack can be perceived as a positive
>inconvenience for others. (One friend of mine went so far as to
>buy a mutual friend a cell phone and a pack of minutes, more or
>less for this reason.)
>
>Mike
I will stand by my current view of cellphones: If I'm not at home or
at work, no one needs to be able to get ahold of me. My favorite line
for people who try to sell me cell phone service is "Cell phones are
the work of the devil." Tends to shut them up and get them to leave
you alone.
The only thing that I can see that would make me change my mind is if
I had kids. Then I can see that there could be situations in which
getting hold of me quickly would be useful. Until then, it's not
going to happen.
Seriously though, how is not having a cell phone an inconvenience for
others? Even if I had one, I would keep it off (absent the
above-mentioned kids) unless I wanted to call out, so whoever tried to
call me would get an answering machine, which is exactly what happens
now with my landlines.
Rebecca
Tim McDaniel
<sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> I would tell such a friend that I do not want [the gift cell phone]
> and will not use it, and will, if forced to take it, lock it in a
> drawer in the cellar.
Miss Manners says that it is almost the height of rudeness to refuse a
gift or discard it in view of the giver, but it is also rude for a
giver to check to see what you've done with the gift afterwards.
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
Wayne Throop
: A cell phone, like a gun, can be a blasted nuisance to tote around
: almost all of the time. But, again like a gun, when you need one, you
: *really* need one, and there are no practical substitutes. I have
: one, and I carry it most places I go, but it's almost always turned off.
You know you should be using trigger locks on those phones, right?
To make sure they stay off?
Wayne Throop
: 1) If your boss can never reach you on the cell phone, he knows you're
: ignoring him. If you don't HAVE a cell phone, this isn't an issue.
I've told folks I'm more easily reachable by email.
And then I try to respond quickly to email, and while I'll
eventually respond to voice mail, it's slower. Bosses, and
even some engineers, are often quite trainable by this method.
: 2) Not answer a phone? This is as alien a concept as not watching the
: TV if it's on. I know people who do this -- use a TV as background --
: but it's utterly impossible for me.
Shrug. I turn off the ringer on my wired phone if I need to
concentrate, and let the machine pick up. For a cell phone,
it's even easier and more universally available on all models;
you turn it off when you don't want it to ring. Does wonders
for battery life.