Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #2684 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-11-24 23:46 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-12-01 07:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 90 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc
Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-24 23:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 08:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-25 09:39 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 10:12 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Alan Griffin <ajg@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-25 10:23 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Grahame Parish <maillist.parish@millers-way.net> - 2011-11-25 10:57 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-25 11:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris <decordova@ukgateway.net> - 2011-11-26 01:03 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-26 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-11-25 11:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Bryn Evans <d@a.invalid> - 2011-11-25 16:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 15:51 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Fred Bambrough <fred@[127.0.0.1]> - 2011-11-26 16:20 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-11-26 16:28 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-11-28 10:38 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-30 20:33 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 06:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-01 08:40 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 09:17 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-01 10:15 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-04 07:27 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 07:50 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:41 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 11:44 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 15:26 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 19:07 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 21:05 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 23:36 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:49 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 10:57 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 12:22 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 14:19 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 13:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 15:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 05:58 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 00:21 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 06:17 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-13 09:29 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-12-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-14 08:18 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-12-15 20:53 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-12-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 12:26 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jess <phantasm_39@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 13:25 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 23:48 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-12-04 16:00 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-04 20:56 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:11 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 15:19 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 16:51 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 18:40 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 18:59 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Martin Wynn <m.wynn@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 19:09 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-05 23:03 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 06:53 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Simon <simon.willcocks@t-online.de> - 2011-12-05 23:46 -0800
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 14:38 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Simon <simon.willcocks@t-online.de> - 2011-12-06 09:52 -0800
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 23:05 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 08:58 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 09:13 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 10:06 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:06 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-12-06 19:56 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-06 20:58 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-12-06 23:10 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-12-07 10:24 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-09 09:22 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:09 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-12-06 09:49 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-06 10:52 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Chris Bell <news@highpath.net> - 2011-12-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-11-26 16:27 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:34 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-11-26 16:46 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-27 04:56 +0100
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 08:23 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 10:54 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-11-29 11:55 +0000
Re: Had a bit of fun today... Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-12-01 07:24 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 07:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c323803tim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2789 |
In article <523ab62047see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: [snip] > Again, exactly what I was saying about the downside of using > a trueCall device... I have to agree, what with a friend in hospital at this very moment. A good old-fashioned answering machine or Call Minder is good for screening calls. Intelligent people making important calls leave a message. Parasites in overseas scammer call centres amuse me: "Hello?....Hello?....<click>". I simply never answer any calls which CLI reports as Witheld or Unknown. Anybody making a sales call here with a valid CLI number is simply reported as a nuisance call as I am on the TPS. These are extremely rare. I also tell witholders who leave messages about 1470 but that is far too 'complex' for some dunderheads to manage. -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "To thine own self be true; and it must follow, as the night the day, thou can'st not then be false to any man" Hamlet, Act i, Sc.3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Bailey <bbailey@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 07:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c345e00bbailey@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2800 |
> [snip] > > Again, exactly what I was saying about the downside of using > > a trueCall device... > I have to agree, what with a friend in hospital at this very moment. > A good old-fashioned answering machine or Call Minder is good for > screening calls. Intelligent people making important calls leave a > message. Parasites in overseas scammer call centres amuse me: > "Hello?....Hello?....<click>". > I simply never answer any calls which CLI reports as Witheld or Unknown. Tricky, that. Many NHS callers do just that, fortunately most have sense enough to leave a message. But some don't leave a message. > Anybody making a sales call here with a valid CLI number is simply > reported as a nuisance call as I am on the TPS. These are extremely rare. > I also tell witholders who leave messages about 1470 but that is far too > 'complex' for some dunderheads to manage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 15:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4edcd825$0$2501$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2801 |
On 04/12/2011 08:50, Brian Bailey wrote: > Tricky, that. Many NHS callers do just that, fortunately most have sense > enough to leave a message. But some don't leave a message. I have a basic rule (that I think is getting through to my mother...) that if anybody calls and doesn't bother to leave a message, it simply isn't worth my while to try to work out who the caller is. This, especially, following a call to my mobile from +33899632631. I dialled the number to cut'n'paste it from the dialler to paste it into Google to try to figure out who that could be; unfortunately the phone was on good form and the call connected for *one* second (I didn't terminate quickly enough) and I got charged a euro thirty five for it. Grrr. So now, no message = no concern. NO EXCEPTIONS. Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 11:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c45fd19see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2800 |
In article <523c323803tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > In article <523ab62047see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, > Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> > wrote: > [snip] > > Again, exactly what I was saying about the downside of > > using a trueCall device... > I have to agree, what with a friend in hospital at this > very moment. > A good old-fashioned answering machine or Call Minder is > good for screening calls. Intelligent people making > important calls leave a message. Parasites in overseas > scammer call centres amuse me: > "Hello?....Hello?....<click>". > I simply never answer any calls which CLI reports as > Witheld or Unknown. Anybody making a sales call here with > a valid CLI number is simply reported as a nuisance call > as I am on the TPS. These are extremely rare. Some fifteen years ago I had a box which filtered out WITHHELD calls and sent them to an announce machine, which asked callers either to phone my mobile (number stated) or to redial using the 1470 prefix. Back then there was no requirement on junk callers to present valid CLI, so most of them did present WITHHELD; and also I received far fewer valid calls that presented WITHHELD. Interestingly, a lot of the cold callers then were people trying to sell advertising that I did not want - it was very effective at stopping them too. -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 11:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c49c849News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2802 |
On 04 Dec, in article <523c45fd19see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > Some fifteen years ago I had a box which filtered out > WITHHELD calls and sent them to an announce machine, These days some 'normal' home phones with answering machines built in will automatically divert any calls from 'WITHHELD' numbers straight to the answering machine. For example our Siemens GigaSet does. VERY few leave a message! UNKNOWN calls ring as normal, though. Trouble is, both can be legitimate callers. -- Martin Avison Note that unfortunately this email address will become invalid without notice if (when) any spam is received.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c5e25f6see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2803 |
In article <523c49c849News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk>, Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> wrote: > On 04 Dec, in article > <523c45fd19see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell > Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > > Some fifteen years ago I had a box which filtered out > > WITHHELD calls and sent them to an announce machine, > These days some 'normal' home phones with answering > machines built in will automatically divert any calls > from 'WITHHELD' numbers straight to the answering > machine. For example our Siemens GigaSet does. VERY few > leave a message! [Snip] > Trouble is, both can be legitimate callers. Exactly. If my partner is working late when on call, and phones from the hospital to say that she is leaving and would I please make sure the supper is ready when she gets home, she would NOT be happy to be saying that to an answer machine! -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c7258b0Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2804 |
In article <523c5e25f6see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > Exactly. > If my partner is working late when on call, and phones from > the hospital to say that she is leaving and would I please > make sure the supper is ready when she gets home, she would > NOT be happy to be saying that to an answer machine! I am surprised she is allowed to use hospital phones for personal use. She'd get a slapped wrist in most "private" companies. I have two daughters who both work for the NHS, both use their mobiles when calling "Home" -- Stuart Winsor Only plain text for emails http://www.asciiribbon.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c7d227esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #2806 |
In article <523c7258b0Spambin@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > In article <523c5e25f6see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, > Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> > wrote: > > Exactly. > > If my partner is working late when on call, and phones > > from the hospital to say that she is leaving and would > > I please make sure the supper is ready when she gets > > home, she would NOT be happy to be saying that to an > > answer machine! > I am surprised she is allowed to use hospital phones for > personal use. I do not think that they are too woried about a 2s call to say "I am just leaving". And is it really a sensible use of a consultant's time to make her go outside to use a mobile when she has to phone home to say that she has been delayed on account of something nasty having come up 45 minutes after she should have been able to leave? > She'd get a slapped wrist in most "private" > companies. Really? I get a lot of calls from customers phoning from work. Amd they can often last for 10 or 15 minutes. > I have two daughters who both work for the NHS, both use > their mobiles when calling "Home". I thought that was still, in theory, banned. And there is so much concrete around her office that I doubt that there is any useful signal in there anyway. -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-04 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <523c8af2ffSpambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2808 |
In article <523c7d227esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > > She'd get a slapped wrist in most "private" > > companies. > Really? I get a lot of calls from customers phoning from > work. Amd they can often last for 10 or 15 minutes. There are speed limits on all Britain's roads but it doesn't mean than everyone obeys them! Indeed it would seem that most people don't. There's a road near us which used to have a 40mph limit on it but a couple of years or so it was dropped to 30mph (There is a school on that road) Drive along there at exactly 30mph, as I do, and its quite surprising (or maybe not!) just how quickly a queue builds up behind me - and how many people will overtake! When I first joined the BBC at Daventry, there was only one phone with a direct outside line and that was in the office of the "Engineer in Charge", all other calls had to be made via the switchboard. Outside office hours, the line was switched through to the control centre so that calls could be made to the emergency services if required. If you made a private call you were supposed to tell the general office who would charge you for it. Later on the charge was dropped for short duration local calls because it cost more to administer than the call cost but you were still supposed to inform them. I don't know the later scenario in the BBC because BBC transmission was sold off but when we were in private hands we weren't supposed to make private calls. > > I have two daughters who both work for the NHS, both use > > their mobiles when calling "Home". > I thought that was still, in theory, banned. And there is so > much concrete around her office that I doubt that there is > any useful signal in there anyway. Steve Pampling, who used to be regular round these parts, was given a mobile phone by the hospital authorities so that he could be contacted anywhere on the site! My eldest is a Radiotherapy technician and spends her working day inside an underground bunker but it doesn't stop her slipping outside to send a quick text message if the need arises. -- Stuart Winsor Only plain text for emails http://www.asciiribbon.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-05 15:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4edcd9f5$0$2541$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2808 |
On 04/12/2011 22:05, Russell Hafter News wrote: > I do not think that they are too woried about a 2s call to > say "I am just leaving". Don't be too sure - beancounters and logic don't mix. > And is it really a sensible use of a consultant's time ...um... she's supposed to finish her work, then go make whatever calls she thinks she has to make. From their point of view, is it a sensible use of resources to go calling family members when that can be done off your own phone in the car park? I speak from knowing one person who was fired for "stealing bin bags". She used to stuff some into her pockets so she could do the rounds without going back and forth for each bag. One day she was caught "leaving" with two remaining in her pocket (that probably would have come back the next day). Problem is, when there are more employees than jobs, employers can get away with being inflexible bastards, and common sense/reason goes right out the window. > to make her go outside to use a mobile ...on her OWN time, I'm sure they'd say. > when she has to phone home to say that she has been delayed > on account of something nasty having come up 45 minutes > after she should have been able to leave? If it is anything like my job, "tant pis". You work over, and if somebody has to wait for you for an hour extra, too bad. You don't like it, you go work somewhere else... [see what I mean?] Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2808 |
In article <523c7d227esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>, Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > In article <523c7258b0Spambin@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart > <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote: [Snip] > > I have two daughters who both work for the NHS, both use their > > mobiles when calling "Home". > I thought that was still, in theory, banned. Apart from not taking your phone with you into the MRI scanner, the idea that phones would interfere with hospital bedside equipment was put about by those sharks who supply bedside phones and who wanted you to pay the earth to use them, as you lay dying. The same people, presumably, who put about urban myths about using phones on garage forecourts. In our local hosps, patients, nurses, doctors, and other staff will all be seen using mobile phones just about everywhere. It has been realised that hospital trusts would never have allowed O2/Orange/etc to install those effing great cell masts on the roof if they thought that those frequencies posed a threat to their equipment, the vast majority of which is properly shielded anyway. Urban myths writ large by greedy people, as usual. > And there is so much > concrete around her office that I doubt that there is any useful signal > in there anyway. Nearer the roof it's probably okay. -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "'Tis good to be sad and say nothing" A Y L I, Act iv, Sc.1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5240661c16dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2875 |
In article <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>,
Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> It has been realised
> that hospital trusts would never have allowed O2/Orange/etc to install
> those effing great cell masts on the roof if they thought that those
> frequencies posed a threat to their equipment, the vast majority of which
> is properly shielded anyway.
I'd hope it is by now. But a mobile transmitting on full belt puts out a
signal that can interfere with electronics - if close enough to them. You
still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV - despite the time
mobiles have been around. And the snag is to most a phone call is far more
important than worrying about how close they may be to sensitive
equipment. So the logical thing would be to ban their use apart from in
certain places like rest rooms, canteens, and public areas, etc.
--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <524068b9e7tim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #2879 |
In article <5240661c16dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote: > In article <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill > <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > > It has been realised that hospital trusts would never have allowed > > O2/Orange/etc to install those effing great cell masts on the roof if > > they thought that those frequencies posed a threat to their > > equipment, the vast majority of which is properly shielded anyway. > I'd hope it is by now. But a mobile transmitting on full belt puts out > a signal that can interfere with electronics - if close enough to them. > You still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV - despite > the time mobiles have been around. And the snag is to most a phone call > is far more important than worrying about how close they may be to > sensitive equipment. So the logical thing would be to ban their use > apart from in certain places like rest rooms, canteens, and public > areas, etc. You're usually okay on a general ward too, it's just near the big expensive kit and intensive care that good sense must prevail. As you say, you should no more put your phone on a telly than on a thing measuring your life signs or pumping your morphine. Unless... Any hospital still with a blanket ban on mobile phones is soo last century. -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "O, beauty, till now I never knew thee!" Henry VIII, Act i, Sc.4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 12:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52406bf1f2bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2883 |
In article <524068b9e7tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: [Snip] > You're usually okay on a general ward too, it's just near the > big expensive kit and intensive care that good sense must > prevail. As you say, you should no more put your phone on a > telly than on a thing measuring your life signs or pumping > your morphine. Unless... 18 months ago I spent 10 days in Leeds General Infirmary's Yorkshire Heart Centre having a heart valve and pacemakr fitted. Using mobiles for outbound calls was not banned in the 3 different 4-person wards I inhabited, where there was plenty of electronic monitoring equipment around. Receiving calls was discouraged, to minimise disturbance of other patients, but not prohibited . I believe phones were banned in the High Dependency Wards but using a phone there would not have been high on most patients' priority lists. Brian. -- ______________________________________________________________ Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK ______________________________________________________________
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hughes <news@noonehere.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4ea2764052.chris@o2.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2886 |
In message <52406bf1f2bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk>
Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <524068b9e7tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill
> <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> [Snip]
>> You're usually okay on a general ward too, it's just near the
>> big expensive kit and intensive care that good sense must
>> prevail. As you say, you should no more put your phone on a
>> telly than on a thing measuring your life signs or pumping
>> your morphine. Unless...
> 18 months ago I spent 10 days in Leeds General Infirmary's
> Yorkshire Heart Centre having a heart valve and pacemakr fitted.
> Using mobiles for outbound calls was not banned in the 3
> different 4-person wards I inhabited, where there was plenty of
> electronic monitoring equipment around. Receiving calls was
> discouraged, to minimise disturbance of other patients, but not
> prohibited .
Just remember not to put your mobile too close to your pacemaker!
Although fairly well shielded nowadays, the shielding varies between
manufacturers.
Its the same with other hospital equipment, if its fairly new its
generally OK, but watch some of the drip feed equipment, I have seen
two increase there flow due to someone using their mobile too close to
one.
--
Chris Hughes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 13:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <524073c19dcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2879 |
In article <5240661c16dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote: > In article <524064308atim@invalid.org.uk>, > Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > > It has been realised that hospital trusts would never have allowed > > O2/Orange/etc to install those effing great cell masts on the roof if > > they thought that those frequencies posed a threat to their equipment, > > the vast majority of which is properly shielded anyway. > I'd hope it is by now. But a mobile transmitting on full belt puts out a > signal that can interfere with electronics - if close enough to them. You > still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV - despite the time > mobiles have been around. And the snag is to most a phone call is far more > important than worrying about how close they may be to sensitive > equipment. So the logical thing would be to ban their use apart from in > certain places like rest rooms, canteens, and public areas, etc. It isn't just their "use" - it's being switched on. The mating call will happen at regular intervals, despite the owner thinking "I'm not using my phone". And, in screened situations, like steel framed buildings, thye mobile will crank itself up to maximum power to try and make contact with the base station. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee6205d$0$5670$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2879 |
On 12/12/2011 12:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > You still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV Only for 2G. 3G doesn't appear to muck up radios; though I am guessing it takes more power as the phone warms up when running on 3G. > And the snag is to most a phone call is far more important than worrying > about how close they may be to sensitive equipment. Surely there are rules and regs about sensitive equipment being adequately shielded? And earthed? And somebody actually testing this once in a while? Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-12 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52407ea1a3charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2892 |
In article <4ee6205d$0$5670$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 12/12/2011 12:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > > You still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV > Only for 2G. 3G doesn't appear to muck up radios; though I am guessing > it takes more power as the phone warms up when running on 3G. > > And the snag is to most a phone call is far more important than worrying > > about how close they may be to sensitive equipment. > Surely there are rules and regs about sensitive equipment being > adequately shielded? And earthed? And somebody actually testing this > once in a while? Ther are requirements. You don't get a CE mark unless it conforms. But, it's probably self-certified -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 05:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee6db7d$0$2528$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #2895 |
On 12/12/2011 16:46, charles wrote: > Ther are requirements. You don't get a CE mark unless it conforms. But, > it's probably self-certified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark While things can be self-certified, it looks as if it is mostly aimed at low-importance stuff. Medical kit has more stringent rules. I think, to be honest, the CE mark is harmed by different requirements in different situations, meaning it can't really be taken as a quality assurance without understanding specifics, and who wants to bother with that? It's like plastic cartons with symbols for the type of plastic used... I don't *CARE*, just tell me if it can be recycled or not. Like that bloody German green dot thing which tells me that the company concerned is active in the use of recycled materials. It does *NOT* tell me the thing in my hand can be recycled. Grrrr! Okay, it's a gale outside and I've just had a soaking walking halfway around the world to pick up our letterbox (who'da'thunk a *metal* box could fly further than a plastic frisbee-shaped plant pot base?), so rant over, time for a relaxing cuppa before I hit the sack... Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 00:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5240adc42edave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #2892 |
In article <4ee6205d$0$5670$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 12:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > You still hear this 'mating call' regularly on radio and TV
> Only for 2G. 3G doesn't appear to muck up radios; though I am guessing
> it takes more power as the phone warms up when running on 3G.
I was more meaning as broadcast over the radio from a phone in the studio
or location. And you'd assume most broadcast equipment would be new enough
- or modified - to prevent this happening in all but the most arduous
circumstances.
> > And the snag is to most a phone call is far more important than
> > worrying about how close they may be to sensitive equipment.
> Surely there are rules and regs about sensitive equipment being
> adequately shielded? And earthed? And somebody actually testing this
> once in a while?
There will be a limit to how well things are shielded. It's not an on/off
type thing.
> Best wishes,
> Rick.
--
*If work is so terrific, how come they have to pay you to do it?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc
csiph-web