On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:47:14 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2012-02-01, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 01 Feb 2012 04:02:28 -0600 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>> ?? I think there are 2^10, or 1024 ways that 10 coin tosses can come
>>> out and 10 of those ways will include 9 heads, so that makes the
>>> probability of 9 heads 10/1024, or about 1 in 100. Unless I've lost
>>> my math skills even the 900 heads in 1000 will occur about 1 in 1800
>>> times ((1000!/900!) / (2^1000)).
>>>
>>
>> Your math skills are fine, although I'd argue the odds are slightly
>> better than that, if you assume that any result 900 heads *or more*
>> satisfies the spirit if the game, which means we have to add the results
>> for 901, 902, etc.
>
>Yes, I thought about that just before I pressed the "send" key but
>didn't bother since it doesn't make much difference. For the 10 tosses
>you end up with a probability of 11/1024, which is still pretty close
>to 1 in 100. I think the probability of throwing 901 heads is only 1/901
>of the probability of throwing 900, 902 is (1/(902*901)) of 900, and
>so on, so even with all those added in you're probably still looking
>at a probability of 1 in 1800 correct to three decimal places.
>
>Dennis Ferguson


And let's not overlook the odds on the bet. Low probability of winning
isn't all bad if the relative return is high enough.

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 00:15:05 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:24 -0700]:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:47:27 -0700]:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>From your link
>>>>>"encyclopedia - a reference work..."
>>>>
10 >>>>>Wikipedia is not a reference work.
>>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reference+work
>>>>
>>>> You're right, but maybe that wasn't such a great dictionary link
>>>> anyway. I mean doesn't 'The Free Dictionary' sound kind of cheap and
>>>> un-official?
>>>>
>>>> How about we go with a really *quality* dictionary, say
>>>> Merriam-Webster:
>>>>
>>>> "Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA:
>>>> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge
>>>> or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
>>>> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia
>>>>
>>>> Whew, no mention of 'reference'. Looks like Wikipedia is an
>>>> encyclopedia after all...
>>>
>>>In that case there is no such thing as an encyclopedia unless it's about
>>>a single branch of knowledge. Nothing, not even wikipedia, covers
>>>ALL branches of knowledge.
>>
>> Of course there are, by definition: all branches or a particular
>> branch:
>>
>> "An encyclopedia (also *****ed encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a
>> type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information
>> from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of
>> knowledge..."
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
>
>Wikipedia is not a reference work

Ever do any BASIC programming?
Ever get stuck in a loop?

GOTO 10

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:23:45 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2012-02-01, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/1/2012 1:08 AM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>>> 3. Access numbers in a bunch of countries (not all, but many of the ones
>>>> I go to) (not available on Google Voice).
>>
>>> I like Localphone for all those reasons,
>>
>> I looked at their site but I could not see anything about accessing
>> their system outside the U.S.. It appears to be for calls only from the
>> U.S. to other countries. Do they have access to their system in other
>> countries, and if so, which countries? Or must you use the web to make
>> calls in other countries, like Google Voice?
>
>They have local numbers in 48 countries (I'd list them, but I don't
>know how to make my browser cut-and-paste from a menu; basically
>they cover the EU, Japan, the developed English-speaking countries
>and some Central and South American countries), so anything you can
>do in the USA you can do in the other 47.

Is this the list?

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Peru
Poland
Puerto Rico
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

Taken from <http://help.localphone.com/direct_dial>

--
Paul Miner

On 2012-02-01, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 01 Feb 2012 04:02:28 -0600 Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> ?? I think there are 2^10, or 1024 ways that 10 coin tosses can come
>> out and 10 of those ways will include 9 heads, so that makes the
>> probability of 9 heads 10/1024, or about 1 in 100. Unless I've lost
>> my math skills even the 900 heads in 1000 will occur about 1 in 1800
>> times ((1000!/900!) / (2^1000)).
>>
>
> Your math skills are fine, although I'd argue the odds are slightly
> better than that, if you assume that any result 900 heads *or more*
> satisfies the spirit if the game, which means we have to add the results
> for 901, 902, etc.

Yes, I thought about that just before I pressed the "send" key but
didn't bother since it doesn't make much difference. For the 10 tosses
you end up with a probability of 11/1024, which is still pretty close
to 1 in 100. I think the probability of throwing 901 heads is only 1/901
of the probability of throwing 900, 902 is (1/(902*901)) of 900, and
so on, so even with all those added in you're probably still looking
at a probability of 1 in 1800 correct to three decimal places.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2012-02-01, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/1/2012 1:08 AM, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>>> 3. Access numbers in a bunch of countries (not all, but many of the ones
>>> I go to) (not available on Google Voice).
>
>> I like Localphone for all those reasons,
>
> I looked at their site but I could not see anything about accessing
> their system outside the U.S.. It appears to be for calls only from the
> U.S. to other countries. Do they have access to their system in other
> countries, and if so, which countries? Or must you use the web to make
> calls in other countries, like Google Voice?

They have local numbers in 48 countries (I'd list them, but I don't
know how to make my browser cut-and-paste from a menu; basically
they cover the EU, Japan, the developed English-speaking countries
and some Central and South American countries), so anything you can
do in the USA you can do in the other 47. I'm in Hong Kong right
now and dial Hong Kong numbers to make calls. When I return
to the US (or Canada or the UK) I change the country in my account
and it assigns numbers from that country (and city) to my contacts.

When you are not in one of the 48 countries you can still get inbound
calls forwarded to you, but outbound calls need to be made either
from the web interface a la Google Voice (they charge for both ends
of the call) or, better, using a SIP softphone. Between the SIP
softphone and the Google Voice web interface you can, of course, also
make USA and Canada calls for free if you feel like it, though their
direct rates are good enough that I don't bother.

They aren't perfect. I wish they had numbers in China and
Taiwan. I wish they would let you forward phones without buying
a local DID (Rebtel does this, awkwardly), but they don't seem
to get signalling which includes the forwarding number from their
carriers. The call quality is often good, but sometimes not; the
call to Burma was unusable, for example, though the same call with
Google Voice was similarly unusable so I suspect the problem might be
with the Burmese VoIP carrier. Their prices are generally as good or
better than anyone else's, however.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2/2/2012 9:22 AM, Justin wrote:
> AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:47:27 -0700]:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Justin<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > From your link
>>> "encyclopedia - a reference work..."
>>
>>> Wikipedia is not a reference work.
>>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reference+work
>>
>> You're right, but maybe that wasn't such a great dictionary link
>> anyway. I mean doesn't 'The Free Dictionary' sound kind of cheap and
>> un-official?
>>
>> How about we go with a really *quality* dictionary, say
>> Merriam-Webster:
>>
>> "Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA:
>> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge
>> or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
>> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia
>>
>> Whew, no mention of 'reference'. Looks like Wikipedia is an
>> encyclopedia after all...
>
> In that case there is no such thing as an encyclopedia unless it's about
> a single branch of knowledge. Nothing, not even wikipedia, covers
> ALL branches of knowledge.

That's more or less correct. An encyclopedia devotes a paragraph or two
to each topic and, typically, cites some sources where more details
can be found. It's a "once over lightly" for ALL knowledge.

"World Book" and "Encyclopedia Britanica" are two well known
encyclopedias. Most libraries have at least one encyclopedia.
It's a place to start. If you really want study something in depth
you don't stop with the encyclopedia!

AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:21:24 -0700]:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:47:27 -0700]:
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>From your link
>>>>"encyclopedia - a reference work..."
>>>
>>>>Wikipedia is not a reference work.
>>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reference+work
>>>
>>> You're right, but maybe that wasn't such a great dictionary link
>>> anyway. I mean doesn't 'The Free Dictionary' sound kind of cheap and
>>> un-official?
>>>
>>> How about we go with a really *quality* dictionary, say
>>> Merriam-Webster:
>>>
>>> "Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA:
>>> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge
>>> or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
>>> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"
>>>
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia
>>>
>>> Whew, no mention of 'reference'. Looks like Wikipedia is an
>>> encyclopedia after all...
>>
>>In that case there is no such thing as an encyclopedia unless it's about
>>a single branch of knowledge. Nothing, not even wikipedia, covers
>>ALL branches of knowledge.
>
> Of course there are, by definition: all branches or a particular
> branch:
>
> "An encyclopedia (also *****ed encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a
> type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information
> from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of
> knowledge..."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a reference work

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:01:20 -0500, tlvp <[email protected]>
wrote:

>OK, test case: my SW Bell 40-Channel AutoScan Freedom Phone (a 900 MHz
>cordless handset + base station with the base station hardwired to my
>ILEC's local loop copper wiring). Certainly (I'd hope) that's POTS. But is
>it "landline"? or not? (remember, it's a cordless handset)

Landline, obviously.

--
Paul Miner

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:22:11 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:47:27 -0700]:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>From your link
>>>"encyclopedia - a reference work..."
>>
>>>Wikipedia is not a reference work.
>>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reference+work
>>
>> You're right, but maybe that wasn't such a great dictionary link
>> anyway. I mean doesn't 'The Free Dictionary' sound kind of cheap and
>> un-official?
>>
>> How about we go with a really *quality* dictionary, say
>> Merriam-Webster:
>>
>> "Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA:
>> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge
>> or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
>> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia
>>
>> Whew, no mention of 'reference'. Looks like Wikipedia is an
>> encyclopedia after all...
>
>In that case there is no such thing as an encyclopedia unless it's about
>a single branch of knowledge. Nothing, not even wikipedia, covers
>ALL branches of knowledge.

Of course there are, by definition: all branches or a particular
branch:

"An encyclopedia (also *****ed encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a
type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information
from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of
knowledge..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:17:41 -0700, AaronJ wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:46:45 -0700, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>At 01 Feb 2012 10:54:53 -0700 AaronJ wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:41:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yes I have a phone modem. The only difference between me and POTS is
>>> that the POTS modem is at the other end of the twisted pair. (In my
>>> case just a few blocks away.)
>
>>Again, you can't attach a telephone to your incoming cable line directly.
>>You can to the phone wire coming into the house (assuming it's live.)
>
> True. But that would not change the definition of landline. I've never
> seen a definition of landline that *requires* that the phone be
> directly connected.
>
>>The definition you cited included point-to-point fixed-wireless
>>installations such as microwave.
>
> There are different meanings for the word landline just as there are
> for the word cable. We have been talking here about the phone meaning
> in both cases. Not the fixed microwave installation definition or, as
> an analogy, the undersea cable definition of cable.
>
> Like all dictionaries several meanings of a word are listed. That
> microwave installation definition was down the list on the site I
> cited. That's why I didn't include it in my post quote. It didn't
> apply to this discussion.
>
>>By that definition, my cell phone is a
>>landline if it never leaves the house. Its position is fixed, as is the
>>tower in my neighborhood. (My provider only has one tower here.)
>
> No.
>
> (1) You used the wrong part of the definition of landline so this
> argument is bogus.
>
> (2) Those landline definitions I quoted excluded cell phones. (The
> contrast was fixed land based wire fed consumer phones vs mobile
> wireless based consumer phones.)
>
>>Generally in technology, some standards or rule-making body defines the
>>terminology. "Broadband", for example, has a definition with minimum
>>allowed speeds. "4G" has (or had) a definition that included speed and
>>technology used, etc.
>
> So there are supposed to be technical standards for the word landline?
> I don't think landline is really a technical word. It is just jargon
> for a home telephone line. It's probably as old as the telephone
> itself. And as previously mentioned it has changed with the times.
>
>>In any case, I concede the argument.
>
> I accept. Graciously of course...

OK, test case: my SW Bell 40-Channel AutoScan Freedom Phone (a 900 MHz
cordless handset + base station with the base station hardwired to my
ILEC's local loop copper wiring). Certainly (I'd hope) that's POTS. But is
it "landline"? or not? (remember, it's a cordless handset)

I'm taking no position here, just curious what positions others take :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:20:21 -0600, Paul Miner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:57:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:56:19 -0700, AaronJ
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:59:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:38:35 -0700, AaronJ
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:18:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:54:31 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know how it works where we are, but we had a bug power outage
>>>>>>and plugging a POTS phone into the wall jack worked even though we
>>>>>>have cable phone service.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's because you have a backup battery in your modem. If your power
>>>>>is off for several hours you may lose service when the battery dies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is no backup battery in my modem.
>>>
>>>There has to be a backup battery somewhere. Modems don't work without
>>>power. What modem do you have?
>>
>>
>>Motorola SB6120. And the power is AC.
>
>The SB6120 doesn't do voice, so two things come to mind. You may have
>a separate device (eMTA) located elsewhere on the premises that's
>providing voice over the cable network, or you may not in fact have
>voice over the cable network at all.

I do have voice over cable. It is possible that there is something
else hidden elswhere in the cable system that does voice. I'll take a
look

On 2/1/2012 3:12 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> AaronJ<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Recently I was able get substantial savings by cable bundling
>
> *bull*****
>
> Cablecos generally charge HUGE amounts of money for phone service.

That's true, but if someone has been paying for an AT&T landline with
all of the enhanced calling features, plus unlimited long distance
service from AT&T then the price the cable company (Comcast anyway)
charges for bundled service may seem like a good deal.

> Years ago I went with ViaTalk, and every two years I pay them $199. At
> some point the feds got involved and wanted their piece, so I also pay
> $3.50/ month in taxes.
>
> That's for 2 lines full of everything, including a killer control panel
> (those "unsecured debt relief" robocalls get redirected to my US
> senator's office).

The ability to get rid of those annoying calls would be worth it.

A lot of subscribers to Sonic Fusion (the combined DSL/Landline service
offered in Northern California over AT&T copper) have been asking Sonic
for something like that control panel you have on Viatalk in an effort
to get rid of all the annoying calls). Amusingly, I am cat-sitting for
my friend (who also has Sonic Fusion) and I was at her house in Palo
Alto, and I looked at her phone and there were about 20 missed calls all
from robo-calls. While I was there the phone rang and I heard the
talking caller ID say "call from Low-er-in-ter-est."

Alas Via Talk no long offers a deal like you're getting.

Ooma seems like a good deal, if they survive. With their $13.50/month
(with fees tacked onto the $10/month price) premier service they let you
set up personal blacklists of phone numbers that don't get through, and
they also maintain a master blacklist with thousands of known
telemarketing phone numbers, that you can choose to block. Alas, the
business model of some of these VOIP companies is questionable. If
everyone signed up for premier service they could survive, but
apparently only 25% or so of Ooma customers use the premier service.

On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:57:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:56:19 -0700, AaronJ
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:59:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:38:35 -0700, AaronJ
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:18:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:54:31 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know how it works where we are, but we had a bug power outage
>>>>>and plugging a POTS phone into the wall jack worked even though we
>>>>>have cable phone service.
>>>>
>>>>That's because you have a backup battery in your modem. If your power
>>>>is off for several hours you may lose service when the battery dies.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no backup battery in my modem.
>>
>>There has to be a backup battery somewhere. Modems don't work without
>>power. What modem do you have?
>
>
>Motorola SB6120. And the power is AC.

The SB6120 doesn't do voice, so two things come to mind. You may have
a separate device (eMTA) located elsewhere on the premises that's
providing voice over the cable network, or you may not in fact have
voice over the cable network at all.

--
Paul Miner

AaronJ wrote on [Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:47:27 -0700]:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:42 +0000 (UTC), Justin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>From your link
>>"encyclopedia - a reference work..."
>
>>Wikipedia is not a reference work.
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reference+work
>
> You're right, but maybe that wasn't such a great dictionary link
> anyway. I mean doesn't 'The Free Dictionary' sound kind of cheap and
> un-official?
>
> How about we go with a really *quality* dictionary, say
> Merriam-Webster:
>
> "Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA:
> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge
> or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject"
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia
>
> Whew, no mention of 'reference'. Looks like Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia after all...

In that case there is no such thing as an encyclopedia unless it's about
a single branch of knowledge. Nothing, not even wikipedia, covers
ALL branches of knowledge.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:56:19 -0700, AaronJ
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:59:17 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:38:35 -0700, AaronJ
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:18:50 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:54:31 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't know how it works where we are, but we had a bug power outage
>>>>and plugging a POTS phone into the wall jack worked even though we
>>>>have cable phone service.
>>>
>>>That's because you have a backup battery in your modem. If your power
>>>is off for several hours you may lose service when the battery dies.
>>
>>
>>There is no backup battery in my modem.
>
>There has to be a backup battery somewhere. Modems don't work without
>power. What modem do you have?


Motorola SB6120. And the power is AC.