Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.telecom > #39349 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Codger <codger524@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-04-11 10:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-04-16 14:42 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom
BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 10:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 10:30 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Pullen <me@privacy.net> - 2026-04-11 11:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-04-11 14:12 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-04-11 11:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-11 11:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-11 13:54 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 18:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> - 2026-04-11 17:36 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-12 12:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 12:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-13 13:37 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-13 13:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-13 22:41 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-03 23:21 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 11:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-04 11:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 12:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 16:41 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:37 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 17:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:03 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:16 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-05-06 08:28 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:31 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:34 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:16 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:53 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 20:23 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 21:41 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-07 14:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-06 09:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:27 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-06 16:38 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-06 19:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 19:39 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 19:07 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 22:30 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 22:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 09:07 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:24 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:49 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:26 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 20:06 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 20:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:09 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 17:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:58 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 18:19 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 13:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-05 14:11 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 14:28 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 13:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 17:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-05-09 09:49 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:01 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-04 17:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-05 12:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 12:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 17:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-05 23:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:30 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:04 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-09 10:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-09 12:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-10 10:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-10 18:50 +0100
OT: Steam (was: Re: BT Digital Voice with no router) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-10 20:16 +0100
Re: OT: Steam Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-11 12:12 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-11 13:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-11 18:25 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 09:22 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-12 13:22 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 14:21 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-12 15:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 14:50 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-12 16:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-05-13 21:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-12 15:19 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-12 16:32 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 10:42 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 13:09 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router grinch <grinch@somewhere.net> - 2026-05-13 14:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:51 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-13 20:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:51 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-13 21:25 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 19:26 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 21:31 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 08:52 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:23 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-05 22:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-06 09:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-06 11:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-25 18:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-26 14:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:18 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 21:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:28 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:11 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-05 07:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:25 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 13:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-13 23:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-14 09:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-14 18:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-14 18:51 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-14 20:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-15 09:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-15 09:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 14:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-05-03 16:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 18:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-03 22:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 09:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-05-03 16:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-03 18:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-12 15:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-11 18:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 19:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-12 08:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-04-19 14:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-11 20:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 22:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-04-12 08:42 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 09:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-04-11 11:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 12:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-16 13:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-16 14:42 +0100
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 13:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u1plu$2jago$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39563 |
On 13/05/2026 10:42, Davey wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2026 09:44:56 +0100 > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 12/05/2026 16:32, JMB99 wrote: >>> On 12/05/2026 15:19, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> Renewable advocates like to say the china is bursting with >>>> renewables but apart from hydropwer it isn't. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it more a case that they can ignore protests from >>> environmentalists? >>> >>> >>> >> Certainly their policies are decided by a centralised government and >> not a rabble of private interests gulling the gullible >> >> But environmentalism is dead. Even the Greens are busy reinventing >> themselves as >> HAMAS UK. >> >>> >> > > See, if you can, this tongue-in-cheek piece: > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/13/zack-polanski-green-party-my-truths/ > Perfect. He is even worse than the Liberal Dimwits in saying totally contradictory things to people intending to vote for the Greens depending on exactly who they are and what they want to hear. By the way it is getting increasingly hard to read ye Telegraph: You have to enable JavaScript in your blocker until the page loads, then immediately disable it before the 'give us your money' shit turns up -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | grinch <grinch@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u1ubg$2nerq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39564 |
>>> >> >> See, if you can, this tongue-in-cheek piece: >> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/13/zack-polanski-green-party- >> my-truths/ >> > Perfect. > > He is even worse than the Liberal Dimwits in saying totally > contradictory things to people intending to vote for the Greens > depending on exactly who they are and what they want to hear. > He needs to be careful the cult of Nigel Farage and the Tories will sue him for breach of their longstanding copyright.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u2dmq$2sb5d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39565 |
On 13/05/2026 14:29, grinch wrote: > the cult of Nigel Farage and the Tories Oh dear How sad. Never mind -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u2kbp$22fsn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39567 |
On 2026/5/13 18:51:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 13/05/2026 14:29, grinch wrote: >> the cult of Nigel Farage and the Tories > > Oh dear > How sad. > Never mind > Their second album was rubbish .. (TM) UMRA -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jdunFa5fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #39564 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > By the way it is getting increasingly hard to read ye Telegraph: > You have to enable JavaScript in your blocker until the page loads, then > immediately disable it before the 'give us your money' shit turns up I use a second (different) browser to cope with this issue and which has JS disabled, merely pasting into it the copied link. Works a treat for JS-scripted web sites. -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u2dq9$2sb5d$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39566 |
On 13/05/2026 14:51, Spike wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> By the way it is getting increasingly hard to read ye Telegraph: >> You have to enable JavaScript in your blocker until the page loads, then >> immediately disable it before the 'give us your money' shit turns up > > I use a second (different) browser to cope with this issue and which has JS > disabled, merely pasting into it the copied link. Works a treat for > JS-scripted web sites. > Unfortunately that no longer works for El Torygraph, JS is needed to load the page, but once cached you can disable it for a subscription free read. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6k8hiF4cilU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #39568 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 13/05/2026 14:51, Spike wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> By the way it is getting increasingly hard to read ye Telegraph: >>> You have to enable JavaScript in your blocker until the page loads, then >>> immediately disable it before the 'give us your money' shit turns up >> >> I use a second (different) browser to cope with this issue and which has JS >> disabled, merely pasting into it the copied link. Works a treat for >> JS-scripted web sites. >> > Unfortunately that no longer works for El Torygraph, JS is needed to > load the page, but once cached you can disable it for a subscription > free read. On my iPhone I turned off JS in the Safari browser, and any such link pasted into it just opens, it’s never failed yet to render the page. Other browsers might work differently… -- Spike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 19:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10taks8$3r9m2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39455 |
On 04/05/2026 18:35, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > [...] >> but whatever you can do to make that better, keeping going with POTS is >> just not practical long term. For one thing, buying new POTS kit is going >> to be increasingly difficult as the world moves on. > > That sounds a bit like the argument that was made in favour of a > particular brand of sound-editing software (whuch I shall call 'X') that > was bloated, expensive and difficult to use, when there were many better > alternatives > > Q: Why is 'X' used in all the professional studios? > > A: Because 'X' is used in all the professional studios, so you can go > to any studio and use it. > > > Q: Why are we getting rid of POTS? > > A: Because we are getting rid of POTS, so it will be more difficult and > expensive to use in future. > > Not true. POTS has been hanging around because until very recently it was required in order to have broadband. So whilst 25 years ago 95% of home had a landline it appears that at present less than 50% of homes now have one, and of those only 16% actually use them. None of my three kids have a land line, well actually one might, there is a socket in his house under the router, but its never had a phone plugged in. So the public are ditching landlines, most of those who have one are elderly, so given the state of the NHS I would say that for home use the landline is dead in the water.... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 11:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tcfue$akv2$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39464 |
On 04/05/2026 18:26, David Wade wrote: > So the public are ditching landlines, most of those who have one are > elderly, so given the state of the NHS I would say that for home use the > landline is dead in the water.... NHS are one of the few people that call me on the landline -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 21:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tavni$3uvto$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39445 |
On 04/05/2026 12:10, Theo wrote: > My point is that that was then. Wired telephones were the only (practical) > comms, and when something is important for national security then you put a > lot of effort into making it robust. Nothing wrong with "new tech" but sometimes "old tech" still works well. Bit like the way TV companies got rid of teletext without having a better system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Codger <codger524@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 08:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rg7jvkt9viio4vb81kan6lfl006qtp9pr6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #39473 |
On Mon, 4 May 2026 21:31:45 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >On 04/05/2026 12:10, Theo wrote: >> My point is that that was then. Wired telephones were the only (practical) >> comms, and when something is important for national security then you put a >> lot of effort into making it robust. > > > >Nothing wrong with "new tech" but sometimes "old tech" still works well. > >Bit like the way TV companies got rid of teletext without having a >better system. > So true! Such a convenient way to find a quick summary of the latest news. Also I preferred the fixed fonts easier to read on screen than proportional fonts, and I quite liked the clunky graphics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 11:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tcg0l$akv2$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39473 |
On 04/05/2026 21:31, JMB99 wrote: > On 04/05/2026 12:10, Theo wrote: >> My point is that that was then. Wired telephones were the only >> (practical) >> comms, and when something is important for national security then you >> put a >> lot of effort into making it robust. > > > > Nothing wrong with "new tech" but sometimes "old tech" still works well. > So why not use a hammer and chisel instead of and SDS drill? > Bit like the way TV companies got rid of teletext without having a > better system. > > Word of mouth was better than teletext. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tcjvf$chp4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39484 |
On 05/05/2026 11:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Word of mouth was better than teletext. Very unlikely. There were numerous major news events that I heard about via CEEFAX long before I would have heard about them via normal news programmes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-05 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tdogj$o72k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39473 |
On Mon 04/05/2026 21:31, JMB99 wrote: > On 04/05/2026 12:10, Theo wrote: >> My point is that that was then. Wired telephones were the only >> (practical) >> comms, and when something is important for national security then you >> put a >> lot of effort into making it robust. > > > > Nothing wrong with "new tech" but sometimes "old tech" still works well. > > Bit like the way TV companies got rid of teletext without having a > better system. > > AND you can still get TVs that have Teletext capability albeit only the BBC transmit it now AFAIK. We have a Philips (branded) 24" TV in the kitchen that has Ethernet capability but is not smart per se (it does let you watch the Freeview hybrid channels 251-299) and it has Teletext.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-06 09:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tetbt$11pa0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39495 |
On 05/05/2026 22:46, Woody wrote: > > AND you can still get TVs that have Teletext capability albeit only the > BBC transmit it now AFAIK. Teletext is a service on analogue Tv so BBC do not transmit it. There is "Text" service incorporated into digital TV but it is not teletext and very limited as well as not used by many people. It did not have many of the features of teletext.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davey <davey@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-06 11:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10tf62j$14al8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39502 |
On Wed, 6 May 2026 09:15:56 +0100 JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 05/05/2026 22:46, Woody wrote: > > > > AND you can still get TVs that have Teletext capability albeit only > > the BBC transmit it now AFAIK. > > > Teletext is a service on analogue Tv so BBC do not transmit it. > > There is "Text" service incorporated into digital TV but it is not > teletext and very limited as well as not used by many people. It did > not have many of the features of teletext. > > > I find it very useful when having my first coffee of the day, sitting on my bed. I do not want a laptop there. -- Davey.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-25 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82fr3fv2zu.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #39511 |
Davey <davey@example.invalid> writes: > On Wed, 6 May 2026 09:15:56 +0100 > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > >> On 05/05/2026 22:46, Woody wrote: >> > >> > AND you can still get TVs that have Teletext capability albeit only >> > the BBC transmit it now AFAIK. >> >> >> Teletext is a service on analogue Tv so BBC do not transmit it. >> >> There is "Text" service incorporated into digital TV but it is not >> teletext and very limited as well as not used by many people. It did >> not have many of the features of teletext. >> >> >> > > I find it very useful when having my first coffee of the day, sitting on > my bed. I do not want a laptop there. Italy still broadcasts teletext (called Televideo). You can view it online too. https://www.televideo.rai.it/televideo/pub/pagina.jsp?p=103&idmenumain=2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 14:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7lmvrFrmblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #39606 |
Richmond wrote: > JMB99 wrote: > >> There is "Text" service incorporated into digital TV but it is not >> teletext and very limited as well as not used by many people. It did >> not have many of the features of teletext. > > Italy still broadcasts teletext (called Televideo). You can view it > online too. I thought Sky channels (e.g. sky news on satellite which it FTA so I can access it) still supported teletext, I've just checked and I can select the teletext substream to get the "888 style" subtitles in VLC, but no other pages I could find ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 12:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10t9v9u$3k7ml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39443 |
On 04/05/2026 11:55, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > It appears you have little knowledge of the strenuous efforts that went > into ensuring the POTS system was reliable under the worst conditions > for the best part of 80 years. If you read through back-numbers of > POEEJ (particularly around the WWII period) there was a well-justified > pride in giving a reliable service which is completely lacking now. > > The worn-out undefunded wreck, which we now think of as POTS, bears > little resemblance to the technically-primitive but properly maintained > and trusted system we had before the 1960s. True, it was very rare for the telephone system to be not working. Also excellent service from the GPO / BT engineers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 14:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10ta62k$3m9pe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39443 |
On 04/05/2026 11:55, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > The worn-out undefunded wreck, which we now think of as POTS, bears > little resemblance to the technically-primitive but properly maintained > and trusted system we had before the 1960s. I remember the delicious smell of urine in the phone boxes bedecked with adverts for French lessons... -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom
csiph-web