OT: drowning devices

Page 3 of 6  
On 11/18/2015 4:48 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Conceptually, yes. But, in practical terms, it seems like most folks EXPECT an almost immediate response to a text: "Don't you have your phone WITH you??" By contrast, someone sending an email seems *surprised* if they receive a prompt response: "Were you sitting at your computer??"
I don't use a cell phone but I can't ever think of a case when I saw someone "check their texts" ("Let me see if I've received any texts since I last *checked*"). OTOH, people *do* "check their email"...
Note that SMS (texts) are a *push* technology (your provider *pushes* the message out to your phone) while email is a *pull* technology (*you* check with your provider to see if you have any email).
While it is possible to configure an email client to "check often" and "announce new mail", I don't think this is the normal means of using email. It seems more common for folks to *explicitly* invoke an action to "check" and wait a few seconds for the RESULT of that check.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2015 05:51 AM, Don Y wrote:

A guy I work with gets a lot of texts and the phone makes a sound that he claims is supposed to be an arrow in flight when they arrive. Personally, I think it sounds like someone cutting craft paper on an old-fashioned paper cutter. Anyway, it goes Phhhhhhhh and he checks it.
One morning I started getting texts from some confused woman documenting her progress around town. By the time I figured out how to send a damn message it was none too polite.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2015 8:36 PM, rbowman wrote:

Exactly. Instant gratification. I imagine "texts" will queue, somewhere (client side or server side) until "checked". So, no need to "jump" each time Pavlov rings his bell -- they'll be waiting for you when you get around to looking at them!

We chat with a neighbor-couple pretty often. Almost always, *her* phone twiddles (I can't tell if its a text or call being signalled as I don't know her ringtones). If she defers answering (because actively participating in a REAL conversation at the time), *his* phone will twiddle. If *he* defers answering (because he's in the same conversation!), then their land line will ring.
I always wonder "Who died?" to merit such a frantic attempt to contact them!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 12:11 AM, Don Y wrote:

When Pavlov rings his bell, my first response is to look around wondering where the music is coming from. After a few seconds, I realize it's a ringtone. A few more, I realize it's the ringtone on my phone. Then begins the search for the muted sounds, which are generally emitting from the old reusable grocery bag I use to carry my lunch, tablet, library books, mail, and other crap. By then the other party has went to voicemail. I attempt to retrieve the voicemail, and manage to delete it instead. Saves a lot of trouble.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 8:22 AM, rbowman wrote:

We currently have an answering machine with ringer turned off. Every day (or so), we try to see if it's fielded any calls. Then, when we have time, listen to the messages and decide how we'll handle them.
[This is why folks don't *rely* on our phone for anything urgent]
I've been working on an algorithm to passively let us "tell" the answering machine which calls we want to take and which to ignore. Once taught, then let *it* decide to delete messages before even bothering us with them! *And*, know when to deliberately find us for messages that are particularly important: "Please stay on the line while I attempt to locate Don..."
I've written some software to implement an NNTP "agent" -- sits between my Thunderbird "client" and (remote) NNTP "server"... acts like a client to the server and a server to my client! It examines posts (parsing the headers *and* content -- so, *it* fetches all messages from the server) and, based on how I've interacted with that "agent" (acting as a client), decides which messages it wants to "bother me with".
So, for example, if I never look at messages from Joe Whackjob, it soon learns not to *show* me any of Joe Whackjob's messages! This is analagous to a telephone system learning "he never takes phone calls from Joe Whackjob so, when Joe calls, don't even bother ringing the phone *or* taking a message!"
This is what a (good) secretary would do -- learn how you want calls handled and then implement that policy *for* you to save you the effort of doing it yourself.
Of course, with NNTP, I can look at the content and make smarter decisions than just looking at the headers. With telephone calls, I can only look at CID (which can be forged), time of day, and other authentication mechanisms -- i.e., I can only get an idea as to *who* is calling, not WHAT they are calling ABOUT!
[So, a close friend can call and try to SELL ME CAR INSURANCE and I wouldn't know ahead of time that it was going to be a sales pitch :< ]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 1:11 AM, Don Y wrote:

My kids are the texting generation, so if I want to stay in touch with them, I text them or they text me. If I don't see the msg right away, it's not usually a big deal because I get a notification that I'll see when I do check my phone. If I miss a phone call I'll get a notification of a missed call, too, and usually someone will leave a voice msg that I can listen to.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 8:27 AM, Muggles wrote:

Exactly. You don't *need* to field each call/SMS *as* it comes in.
OTOH, if you knew one of your kids was driving to East Nowhere, you might be a bit more sensitive to incoming messages while you knew they were on-the-road.
Years ago, if they had called and you didn't consider their activities important/worrisome enough to "stay by the phone", their call would have been unanswered (or routed to an answering machine). So, little reason why it can't do that *now*, as well!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 10:56 AM, Don Y wrote:

Yep! I also don't answer the phone if I don't recognize the number, and that goes with our land line, too. All msgs of the land line go to voice mail, and sometimes we'll get repeated calls from confirmed spam calls and I'll just disconnect the call before it gets to the 'leave a msg' part because I'm sitting by the phone and can see the caller ID.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 11:05 AM, Muggles wrote:

We consider the phone an "interruption"; it exists for the convenience of the CALLER! It makes no concessions to the CALLEE -- except if you elect NOT to respond to its demands! :>
So, we like to discourage folks from using it -- in "passive" ways (i.e., by not answering, not returning calls promptly, etc.)
We're far too old to be enamored with the idea of sitting on the phone for an hour blabbering about nothing important. Too many things to do that are more interesting, personal, interactive, etc. than to waste time on the phone!
I have no problem letting a machine "tie up" the caller -- and then automatically discarding the message. It's relatively easy to detect robocalls -- if the other party doesn't "pause" in their speech as a response to *your* spoken words, then its obviously a dumb machine. You can ignore whatever it says.
[OTOH, if you hang up, it knows that it was "talking" to a human.]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 12:19 PM, Don Y wrote:

I've been thinking about totally removing the answering msg so when the machine answers, it's just empty air. It's just a short blurb right now like 'leave a msg', but the majority of the time the calling part hangs up. Occasionally, we'll get some type of msg that is obviously spam of some sort.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 11:22 AM, Muggles wrote:

Years ago, I had my home phone *listed* -- but under a bogus name (this allows folks who KNOW ME to find my phone number but folks who just know my REAL *name* are left facing an effectively "unlisted" number. And, it doesn't cost extra as unlisting does!). The answering machine had no outgoing message so a caller would just hear "beep".
You'd be surprised how many (incoming) messages were: <3 or 4 seconds of silence> "Hello? Is anyone there??" followed by a hangup. Friends, of course, would know what to expect and would leave a message or "announce themselves" if I was waiting for their call (using the machine to "screen" calls)
I always considered it amusing that folks required the outgoing message to KNOW that they were talking to an answering machine. I.e., the beep by itself wasn't enough of a (reassuring) cue!
Time to juice some more lemons...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 12:38 PM, Don Y wrote:

The only caveat I can think of to not have an answering machine msg, is our Dr's office sometimes calls and leaves msgs there.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 11:40 AM, Muggles wrote:

Our MD's, their office staff, etc. all gladly leave voice mails. I suspect they are smart enough (and self-interested enough!) to NOT want to have to "try again later". Leaving a message allows them to claim they have "done their job" -- even though there is a possibility that they may have misdialed! (they usually don't leave any information -- besides our first names -- that would let some misdialed recipient figure out who they are talking about)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A somewhat viable approach is to program the answering machine to start with the IC SIT code, followed by a couple of seconds of silence before you record the message. This may trigger some autodialers to remove the number from their list.
Audio samples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_information_tones
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 12:28 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

It doesn't work. Most robodialers don't even bother to *listen* for the caller's voice -- they just rattle off their spiel "unconditionally". At times, I wonder if they keep rattling even after you've hung up (in some places, the call isn't disconnected until the *caller* hangs up; you could conceivably pick the receiver back up and hear them still blathering...)
IMO, you need control on *your* end of the line, not theirs. I.e., don't count on them to stop calling. Instead, stop *answering*! And, if you do answer, be selective about when you "ring through" vs. route to voice mail vs. decide it was a mistake to answer! :>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 11:38 AM, Don Y wrote:

I get a certain number that can't figure it out even with the message.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uncle Monster presented the following explanation :

I made one using My native language and have yet to get a reply. :D
Bent Eagle
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uncle Monster wrote :

lol Funny!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/19/2015 11:19 AM, Don Y wrote:

I do wonder about the morons who keep saying 'Hello? Hello?' to a machine. The greeting is generic female robot with 'Please leave your message after the tone.'
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:51:24 AM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

I have carried a CP since the early days when they got affordable. I only carry it whenI am out in the boonies cutting wood with no one around or whe n driving out of town. For emergency use only. My total use all these yea rs, one I am on my 5th, one lost in the boonies, 2 in the wash and one forc ed change by the carrier, isn't over 15 minutes. Twice it failed me, Batte ry either dead or died in use. Saved me twice, both times flat tires,
The last time I washed one, I discovered that the provider wouild sell me a new flip phone (didn't even know they made thame anymore) for $1.00. Yep, just one dollar for a new phone. They did charge for a $40 "upgrade" but it was required anyhow.
Worse case I ever seen for someone tied to the hing was a co-worker, He wa s on it constantly, checked his phone first thing entering the office altho ugh we all knew he had just checked it before getting out of his car.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.