Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #13340 > unrolled thread

Are geeks becoming more respected?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Are geeks becoming more respected? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-22 10:35 +1100
    Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-22 08:25 +0200
    Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2017-03-22 10:40 +0000
    Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2017-03-22 13:01 -0400
      Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-03-22 16:58 -0300
        Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2017-03-22 20:10 +0000
          Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2017-03-22 17:30 -0400
            Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-03-23 01:54 -0300
        Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2017-03-22 19:17 -0400
        Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-23 09:55 +0000
          Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-23 12:20 +0200
            Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2017-03-23 10:23 +0000
              Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-23 14:57 +0200
            Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2017-03-23 10:23 +0000
              Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-23 14:49 +0200
          Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-23 19:03 +0000
          Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-03-24 01:01 -0300
            Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-24 06:55 +0000
              Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2017-03-24 09:46 +0200
                Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2017-03-24 15:53 -0300
                  Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:59 +0000
                  Re: Are geeks becoming more respected? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2017-03-24 16:00 -0400
                    MIFI [was Re: Are geeks becoming more respected?] arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2017-03-25 18:37 +0000
                mobiles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net> - 2017-04-05 06:24 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13340 — Are geeks becoming more respected?

One of things I seem to spend a fair amount of time doing is helping 
technically illiterate people with their modern technology. That is to 
say, whereas in the past, my geekiness was of no use to most people, 
that's changed.

I'm too old for that to make much difference to me, but I wonder whether 
younger geeks are getting more respect from their non-geek associates now.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13342

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>:

> One of things I seem to spend a fair amount of time doing is helping
> technically illiterate people with their modern technology. That is to
> say, whereas in the past, my geekiness was of no use to most people,
> that's changed.
>
> I'm too old for that to make much difference to me, but I wonder
> whether younger geeks are getting more respect from their non-geek
> associates now.

Your question is not well-defined, but I'd venture to say, no, geeks
stay on the periphery of the social circles. It couldn't be any other
way.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13343

On 21/03/17 23:35, Sylvia Else wrote:
> One of things I seem to spend a fair amount of time doing is helping
> technically illiterate people with their modern technology. That is to
> say, whereas in the past, my geekiness was of no use to most people,
> that's changed.
>
> I'm too old for that to make much difference to me, but I wonder whether
> younger geeks are getting more respect from their non-geek associates now.

It's getting difficult to get front line IT jobs, geeks natural 
instinctive skills are diluted in a job market where others gain 
applicable work skills by memorising methods and tutorials from a few books.

Then, they are also discriminated against by agencies job recruiters who 
fear the lack of a social fit with other members of staff, mainly by 
checking online social profiles, Facebook, LinkedIn etc...

And then for the business suits to get a handle on developers, some 
smart alec developed devops, scrum teams and other project based 
nomenclature, and turned the whole software development life cycle thing 
into a dystopian environment where no one speaks plain English, and the 
office atmosphere is like being at a racetrack beaten by a jockey’s 
whip, interspersed with the occasional 'high-five' enjoyed by those in 
the business suit...

-- 
Adrian C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13345

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, Sylvia Else wrote:

> One of things I seem to spend a fair amount of time doing is helping 
> technically illiterate people with their modern technology. That is to say, 
> whereas in the past, my geekiness was of no use to most people, that's 
> changed.
>
> I'm too old for that to make much difference to me, but I wonder whether 
> younger geeks are getting more respect from their non-geek associates now.
>
There's a difference between being liked, and being exploited.

When I was in high school, I was way off at the edges.  But then every so 
often someone would discover I had some value to them, I could give them 
the answers to the test, or tell them how to hook up their video recorder 
to their tv set (back when it meant adding a jack and wiring it in), or 
whatever. They didnt' like me, they didn't change what they thought of me, 
it simply meant I had something they needed.

There's somewhat of an illusion now, because "technology" is something 
else.

I can remember when someone I knew would say how she didn't like 
technology, but the moment she got home she'd rush to her telephone 
answering machine, and she drove a car, and she was constantly on the 
phone.  She didn't think of them as technology.

Now "technology" is way wider.  It's not hardware or software down at the 
understanding level, it's consumer stuff everywhere.  I used to go to 
electronic stores when I was a kid, to buy parts, now the term is used to 
mean a place that sells consumer electronics.  Everyone gets to be part 
ofit, but that doesn't mean they know anything about it.  I'm sure there's 
a lot of "barefoot doctor" type stuff, people knowing the solution to a 
problem, but not understanding any of it.  If they fall off the map, they 
are lost.  "Everyone" codes now, but look deeper and it's about making a 
webpage, when html isn't even a coding language, but markup tags.

So it tends to broaden things, at the cost of dumbing it down.  Everyone 
wants to be cool, but they can't all be intelligentor understand 
technology.

So there's way more need for the qualified.

I would add that there's similarly a broadening of "geek", not that I'd 
use that word, or "hacker".  We were the castoffs over in the corner, 
doing interesting things but not fit for general society.  But now 
everyone wants to be a "geek". It doens't mean they are the social 
outcasts or have some special understanding of something esoteric, it 
means that anyone can drop some money for a Comicon ticket and dress up, 
and that defines their "geekness" rather than being deeply into science 
fiction or some other weird genre.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13346

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

> I can remember when someone I knew would say how she didn't like 
> technology, but the moment she got home she'd rush to her telephone 
> answering machine, and she drove a car, and she was constantly on the 
> phone.  She didn't think of them as technology.

1989: I told my friends, "You have to get access to email somehow."
      And they all replied, "Oooohhh, geeky.  I hate computers.
      What's wrong with the telephone?  Gak!"

2015: The same friends all say, "What?!  You don't use Facebook? No
      Twitter?  No UTube?  No tablet?  You don't text?  You don't even
      *have* a cellphone?  Whaddya?  Some kind of Luddite?"

> "Everyone" codes now, but look deeper and it's about making a 
> webpage, when html isn't even a coding language, but markup tags.

More typically, they use some on-line HTML composer service that
builds a web page for them. The result is a horrible mare's nest of
markup, script, inline image and font data and other penc.  My SiL did
that and the result had no non-markup readable text whatever.  The
composer put all the substantive text *inside* <DIV... tags:

      <DIV attrib=foo txt="real-text-here"...>

For my part, being on the edge of being dragged kicking and snarling
into the 21st c. by getting a cell phone, I would dearly like to find
the right kind of geek.  I know quite a bit about biochemistry,
metallurgy, computers, Perl, C, Linux, TCP/IP etc.  but doodlysquat
about cell phones.  But the sources of information seem to be (A)
people who speak current impenetrable jargon and assume knowledge of
all the current consumer-recognizable "features" of phones and (B)
people who are keen to sell me hardware and/or service and speak
Marketing Droid.

Ho hum.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13347

On 22/03/17 19:58, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
> More typically, they use some on-line HTML composer service that
> builds a web page for them. The result is a horrible mare's nest of
> markup, script, inline image and font data and other penc.  My SiL did
> that and the result had no non-markup readable text whatever.  The
> composer put all the substantive text *inside* <DIV... tags:
>
>       <DIV attrib=foo txt="real-text-here"...>
>

Good grief...

-- 
Adrian C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13348

Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> writes:

> On 22/03/17 19:58, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>> More typically, they use some on-line HTML composer service that
>> builds a web page for them. The result is a horrible mare's nest of
>> markup, script, inline image and font data and other penc.  My SiL did
>> that and the result had no non-markup readable text whatever.  The
>> composer put all the substantive text *inside* <DIV... tags:
>>
>>       <DIV attrib=foo txt="real-text-here"...>
>
> Good grief...

I think Mike may have mis-represented that a bit.
That's normally:

<div id="foo">Real text here.  Usually with few line breaks...</div>

Putting the text in an attribute would be pretty strange.
It could still be accessed with JavaScript, but the browser
won't render it.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13350

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 22/03/17 19:58, Mike Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> More typically, they use some on-line HTML composer service that
>>> builds a web page for them. The result is a horrible mare's nest of
>>> markup, script, inline image and font data and other penc.  My SiL did
>>> that and the result had no non-markup readable text whatever.  The
>>> composer put all the substantive text *inside* <DIV... tags:
>>>
>>>       <DIV attrib=foo txt="real-text-here"...>
>>
>> Good grief...
> 
> I think Mike may have mis-represented that a bit.

Hey, I don't think so.  I fetched it with wget and groveled through
it, that's where I found meaningful text.  It was a family Christmas
"newsletter"  and is gone so I can't look again.

Used perl regexps to remove markup, scripts, style blocks, other penc
and got nothing left, went groveling with a text editor.

> That's normally:
> 
> <div id="foo">Real text here.  Usually with few line breaks...</div>

Just so.

> Putting the text in an attribute would be pretty strange.
> It could still be accessed with JavaScript, but the browser
> won't render it.

Dunno.  IIRC, SWMBO's Windoes browser rendered it but maybe not -- I
forget.  I have no idea what the concept of doing it that way might be
or what the rational for rendering it is.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13349

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> I can remember when someone I knew would say how she didn't like
>> technology, but the moment she got home she'd rush to her telephone
>> answering machine, and she drove a car, and she was constantly on the
>> phone.  She didn't think of them as technology.
>
> 1989: I told my friends, "You have to get access to email somehow."
>      And they all replied, "Oooohhh, geeky.  I hate computers.
>      What's wrong with the telephone?  Gak!"
>
> 2015: The same friends all say, "What?!  You don't use Facebook? No
>      Twitter?  No UTube?  No tablet?  You don't text?  You don't even
>      *have* a cellphone?  Whaddya?  Some kind of Luddite?"
>
Yes, and so instead of being on the phone with their friends, they text 
their friends.  Not really a big shift.

>> "Everyone" codes now, but look deeper and it's about making a
>> webpage, when html isn't even a coding language, but markup tags.
>
> More typically, they use some on-line HTML composer service that
> builds a web page for them. The result is a horrible mare's nest of
> markup, script, inline image and font data and other penc.  My SiL did
> that and the result had no non-markup readable text whatever.  The
> composer put all the substantive text *inside* <DIV... tags:
>
>      <DIV attrib=foo txt="real-text-here"...>
>
> For my part, being on the edge of being dragged kicking and snarling
> into the 21st c. by getting a cell phone, I would dearly like to find
> the right kind of geek.  I know quite a bit about biochemistry,
> metallurgy, computers, Perl, C, Linux, TCP/IP etc.  but doodlysquat
> about cell phones.  But the sources of information seem to be (A)
> people who speak current impenetrable jargon and assume knowledge of
> all the current consumer-recognizable "features" of phones and (B)
> people who are keen to sell me hardware and/or service and speak
> Marketing Droid.
>
> Ho hum.
>
I don't have one, so I don't pay attention.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13351

On 2017-03-22, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

[26 lines snipped]

> For my part, being on the edge of being dragged kicking and snarling
> into the 21st c. by getting a cell phone, I would dearly like to find
> the right kind of geek.  I know quite a bit about biochemistry,
> metallurgy, computers, Perl, C, Linux, TCP/IP etc.  but doodlysquat
> about cell phones.  But the sources of information seem to be (A)
> people who speak current impenetrable jargon and assume knowledge of
> all the current consumer-recognizable "features" of phones and (B)
> people who are keen to sell me hardware and/or service and speak
> Marketing Droid.

It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple? You look
at Apple & think "*How* fucking much?" and decide on Android. So,
which Android? You don't buy a Samsung, because it will explode and
burn your house down. After that you just need to decide how close
to the source you want to be. If you decide "Very close", you buy a
Google Pixel. If you want good VfM you buy a One+.

And that's about as far as I've got so far. TBH, my BB Z10 does
everything I want from a phone.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 9th day of Discord in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13352

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:

> It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple?

I faced the same dilemma a few years back... and chose Microsoft as the
least evil. Microsoft has all but exited the game but my phone still
works (and even says "NOKIA" on the back).

I'm awaiting the day when I can buy an ecosystem-free smartphone and
install a Linux distribution on it.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13353

On 2017-03-23, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:
>
>> It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple?
>
> I faced the same dilemma a few years back... and chose Microsoft as the
> least evil.

I bought a Blackberry Z10. Works fine and even runs (most) Android apps
(using a shim - it runs QNX natively).

[2 lines snipped]

> I'm awaiting the day when I can buy an ecosystem-free smartphone and
> install a Linux distribution on it.

https://www.ubuntu.com/mobile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_phones


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 9th day of Discord in the YOLD 3183
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13356

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:

> On 2017-03-23, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> I'm awaiting the day when I can buy an ecosystem-free smartphone and
>> install a Linux distribution on it.
>
> https://www.ubuntu.com/mobile
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_phones

From that list, the only available ones are:

   Samsung Z3. Apparently, only available in India, and sold out there
   as well.

   GeeksPhone Revolution runs on Firefox OS, which was discontinued last
   fall.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13354

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:
> 
>> It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple?
> 
> I faced the same dilemma a few years back... and chose Microsoft as the
> least evil.

Seeing the word "Microsoft" connected to the term "least evil" is quite
an oxymoron given just how evil microsoft has been for soo many years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13355

Rich <rich@example.invalid>:

> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid>:
>> 
>>> It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple?
>> 
>> I faced the same dilemma a few years back... and chose Microsoft as
>> the least evil.
>
> Seeing the word "Microsoft" connected to the term "least evil" is
> quite an oxymoron given just how evil microsoft has been for soo many
> years.

It's not an oxymoron; it's ironic but true.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13360

Huge wrote:

> Do you want Android or Apple? You look
> at Apple & think "*How* fucking much?" and decide on Android. So,
> which Android? You don't buy a Samsung, because it will explode and
> burn your house down. After that you just need to decide how close
> to the source you want to be. If you decide "Very close", you buy a
> Google Pixel.

Having owned 4 nexus phones and one nexus tablet, the Pixel phones have 
entered "how fucking much?" territory for me

> If you want good VfM you buy a One+.

They will probably be on my short list next time around, Samsung won't 
unless they ditch the hardware menu button.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13361

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> writes:

> On 2017-03-22, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> 
>> For my part, being on the edge of being dragged kicking and
>> snarling into the 21st c. by getting a cell phone, I would dearly
>> like to find the right kind of geek.  I know...doodlysquat about
>> cell phones.  But the sources of information seem to be (A) people
>> who speak current impenetrable jargon and assume knowledge of all
>> the current consumer-recognizable "features" of phones and (B)
>> people who are keen to sell me hardware and/or service and speak
>> Marketing Droid.
> 
> It's actually quite simple. Do you want Android or Apple? You look
> at Apple & think "*How* fucking much?" and decide on Android.

I wrote off Apple after talking to a salesdroid about the *first* Mac
in -- what?  Early 80s?  Nothing Apple has done since has reverted my
opinion.

Basically, I want a cell phone for:

  + A wifi access point so we can stop depending on deteriorating
    copper for flakey 26-32 Kbps dialup.  The 15 year time
    frame/deadline for broadband everywhere in Canada is too long to
    wait for, assuming optimistically that I live that long.  So that
    function, its price and coverage are priority.

  + If I'm going to have a cell phone at all, it might as well do
    voice.  I'm too old to walk home from anywhere in any weather at
    any time.  And pay phones seem to have become extinct while I
    wasn't looking.  So coverage and reliability are priorities.

Other functions would be of lesser (or negligible) importance.  Being
able to ensure that there are *not* any resident apps doing stuff I
don't approve or know about would be good.  I don't care about playing
games, doing Farcebook, taking and managing cloud storage of photos,
watching UTube while waiting in line to get my potrzbie waxed,
locating the nearest pizza joint etc.  If texting is enabled, a
physical keyboard would be good but a big screen, touch screen &
similar just seem like more bother.  Way to use headphones/earbuds for
voice good -- hard of hearing and AIUI cell phones don't have tunable
quadaphonic-surround-sound-quality audio.

> So, which Android? You don't buy a Samsung, because it will explode
> and burn your house down.

There *is* that.


> After that you just need to decide how close to the source you want
> to be. If you decide "Very close", you buy a Google Pixel. If you
> want good VfM you buy a One+.

Say what?  Pixel?  Is that the Google phone intended for app
developers that offers access to the Android system without risky
rooting?  That would be good in principle although I kinda doubt I'll
ever make the effort to master a new programming environment in which
a typo can brick the hardware.

VfM?  Ideally, give somebody a couple of hunnert bucks cash, then do
net access and occasional voice calls for a year before going back
with more cash.  Any contractual arrangement with a telecom megacorp
would be a negative point.


> And that's about as far as I've got so far. TBH, my BB Z10 does
> everything I want from a phone.

You're doing it too: "BB Z10"?  Big Brother?  Big Bother?


-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13362

Mike Spencer wrote:

> Basically, I want a cell phone for:
>   + A wifi access point

Going to have to be a smartphone then (or not a phone at all, but a MiFi).

>   + If I'm going to have a cell phone at all, it might as well do
>     voice.

Err, yes they do that

> able to ensure that there are *not* any resident apps doing stuff I
> don't approve or know about would be good.

Nexus or Pixel are good for that, cheaper devices tend to come with more 
bloatware doing stuff they think users won't notice.

> I don't care about [...] managing cloud storage of photos,

Things like that /may/ sneak up on you as being handy.

> If texting is enabled, a physical keyboard would be good

built-in keyboards are mainly out of favour these days.

> Pixel?  Is that the Google phone intended for app developers

It's for normal users, probably quite popular with developers too as it 
will get new android versions a long time before other phones do.

> Ideally, give somebody a couple of hunnert bucks cash, then do
> net access and occasional voice calls for a year before going back
> with more cash.  Any contractual arrangement with a telecom megacorp
> would be a negative point.

You're probably looking at least twice that for a reasonable phone, then 
a tenner a month (over here, no idea about canadia) for more minutes of 
calls and text messages than you'll know what to do with, and a 1 or 2GB 
lump of data.

> You're doing it too: "BB Z10"?  Big Brother?  Big Bother?

BlackBerry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13363

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>:

> Mike Spencer wrote:
>> Basically, I want a cell phone for:
>>   + A wifi access point
>
> Going to have to be a smartphone then (or not a phone at all, but a
> MiFi).

Let me mention a practical use case for a smartphone.

Yesterday I needed to go to a meeting in Vantaa, Finland (within the
Helsinki metropolitan area). I don't know Vantaa very well so I checked
out the metro area transportation web site (on the computer) for best
connections and reserved enough time for the trip. The web site gave me
a bus-train-bus-walk route.

While on the train, I used the PHONE's street map to check out the final
destination: Talvitie [Winter Road]. The area looked awfully residential
to me so I became suspicious and used the PHONE to call my associate for
a confirmation. He corrected me and said the meeting would be held at
Tavitie [Teal Road]. I hung up and checked the PHONE's map again,
noticing that the train was taking me to a wrong part of the town. The
train arrived at a major city center and I hopped off to check out my
options.

I first used the PHONE to give my associate another call. Maybe he would
be on his way by car and would be able to pick me up. Unfortunately, he
had already arrived at the place of the meeting. So I used the PHONE's
public transportation app (came with the Lumia). It gave me the best
connections from my current location to Tavitie: train-train-walk. In
the end, I wasn't even late to the meeting.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13367

Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> writes:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>:
> 
>> Mike Spencer wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, I want a cell phone for:
>>>   + A wifi access point
>>
>> Going to have to be a smartphone then (or not a phone at all, but a
>> MiFi).

Okaay, have to look that up.

> Let me mention a practical use case for a smartphone.
> 
> Yesterday I needed to go to a meeting in Vantaa, Finland (within the
> Helsinki metropolitan area). I don't know Vantaa very well...
>
> [ snip account of getting un-lost, finding right train etc.]
>
> ...I wasn't even late to the meeting.

The chances of me being in that situation are non-zero but very small.
Vaguely similar but less pressing situations slightly more probable.

Wifi (or mifi? -- faster net access) is the motivating element here.

Others' comments saved for reference, TYVM.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web