XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

While living next to his neighbor, Jennifer Everett, for the last few
years, Rick Conners has been using her wifi without her knowledge. After
Ms. Everett protected her wifi access with a password, Mr. Conners has
been demanding that she return his access to her internet. After denying
his request, Mr. Conners decided to sue her and claims that since he is subjected to her loud music, he should be allowed to access her wifi
because after all, the signal much like the music bleeds through the
walls and into his residence.

https://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o?si=Nar2iGKyXpm4Zf8V

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

W Fri, 26 Apr 2024 04:15:00 +0000, Judge Porter napisal:

While living next to his neighbor, Jennifer Everett, for the last few
years, Rick Conners has been using her wifi without her knowledge. After
Ms. Everett protected her wifi access with a password, Mr. Conners has
been demanding that she return his access to her internet. After denying
his request, Mr. Conners decided to sue her and claims that since he is subjected to her loud music, he should be allowed to access her wifi
because after all, the signal much like the music bleeds through the
walls and into his residence.

https://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o?si=Nar2iGKyXpm4Zf8V

So I made the mistake of watching it. From start to finish.
Two people were at their respective podiums.

A girl, perhaps the plaintiff and a man, the likely defendant.

There was a judge. But no jury. No lawyers. No court clerk.
But there was a court guard of sorts. And maybe even spectators.

But what was it?

The judge ruled in the lady's favor and against the man which surprises
nobody but then the judge issued a "restraining order" against the man.

Huh?

A restraining order is a legally binding enforced boundary, is it not?
The court doesn't seem to be a legal court but more of a reality show.

How can that restraining order possibly be legally binding?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

Jan K. wrote:

But what was it?

From the description, it was a "Judge Judy" style show?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

On 4/26/2024 2:50 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

Jan K. wrote:

But what was it?

From the description, it was a "Judge Judy" style show?

I fired a radar down the hole this was in, and no reflections
of the pulses seem to come back.

https://www.sfweekly.com/marketplace/judge-porter-newest-top-judge-show-online/article_66ff0892-ccfb-11ee-932f-e71f993b9442.html

Conclusion ? "Scientists are baffled"

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

Paul wrote:

https://www.sfweekly.com/

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

On 4/26/2024 8:00 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

Paul wrote:

https://www.sfweekly.com/

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZnPM1BfK/sfweekly.jpg

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell unlimited internet.

Decades ago, before an international trip, I bought my first laptop and
the night before I was to leave, I was trying to load it. I had dial-up
or dsl. Of course I could copy everything to a usb drive, if they
existed then, but I found I could connect to some neighbor's wifi and it
made things go much faster. I know he didn't have to pay extra.

By the time I got home, iirc, he had a password on it. I was very
lucky.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:38:53 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 4/26/2024 8:00 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

Paul wrote:

https://www.sfweekly.com/

"451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/ZnPM1BfK/sfweekly.jpg

Paul

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 06:55:53 +0200, "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> wrote:

W Fri, 26 Apr 2024 04:15:00 +0000, Judge Porter napisal:

While living next to his neighbor, Jennifer Everett, for the last few
years, Rick Conners has been using her wifi without her knowledge. After
Ms. Everett protected her wifi access with a password, Mr. Conners has
been demanding that she return his access to her internet. After denying
his request, Mr. Conners decided to sue her and claims that since he is
subjected to her loud music, he should be allowed to access her wifi
because after all, the signal much like the music bleeds through the
walls and into his residence.

https://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o?si=Nar2iGKyXpm4Zf8V

So I made the mistake of watching it. From start to finish.
Two people were at their respective podiums.

A girl, perhaps the plaintiff and a man, the likely defendant.

There was a judge. But no jury. No lawyers. No court clerk.
But there was a court guard of sorts. And maybe even spectators.

But what was it?

It was binding arbitration. AFAIK every state permits this, probably
with variations. In some states for decade. The parties agree to give
the court the some or all of the same powers as a government court. In
some places there are religious courts that are given these powers by
the parties. Generally they go by the laws of the state they live in,
but the parties can agree to a different set of laws unless such laws
are against "public policy". That's rare to non-existent, but the
Branch Dividians probably couldn't be approved to use their rules for arbitration.

It takes some of the burden off the government courts/.

It's not mediation, which only provides advice by a neutral party.

Court stenographers are expensive. And often a waste of money when
appeals are not permitted, as is usually the case in small claims. And
even govermnent courts now often only have audio or video recordings.

The judge ruled in the lady's favor and against the man which surprises >nobody but then the judge issued a "restraining order" against the man.

In this state, the judge must have the power to issue restraining orders
or he wouldn't do it. The judges are usually lawyers, often with a
history as judges in government courts.

I think at first they said what state they were in, but I guess to
maximize the TV audience, some don't know.

The People's Court has been on tv for 30+ years, is in NYS and
originally just had parties from NYS, mostly NYC. But I think they
look for cases out of the ordinary, weirdo cases, like the one you
found, and now they take parties from outside the state. Originally,
the first judge, Wapner, would actually cite the statute number and read
the statute on which he based his decision, a NYS statute. After he
left the show, later ones don't do that.

There are at least 10 of these shows on tv, maybe 20 (I'd never heard of
this one.) . Cheap to produce because I don't think there are any
rehearsals. They are no scripts, no lines to learn, because they are
real litigants. Saves a lot of time. I don't know who pays for
transportation and hotel. By comparisons, AIUI, those appearing on game
shows in California have to pay for that stuff themselves.

Judge Maybelline, Judge Judy (annoys me, but popular), 2 others named
after the judge, People's Court (which is the best one.), Divorce Court,
I ttink there is Paternity Court (where the advantage is, I'm sure, that
the tv show pays for the DNA testing, which I suspect is expensive.
Sometimes the guy wants to be the father and sometimes he wants not to
be.) The one you point to. Judge Judy's husband used to have his own
show.

Most cases would otherwise be in small claims court, where no lawyers
are required (except for corporations, that don't really exist and can
only speak through a lawyer. At least that was the rule at first but
iiuc law suits became a way to almost extort the corporation, sometiems
a small family business, which would have to pay a lawyer for half a day
or more at hundred dollars an hour so it was cheaper to settle. Now
aiui in most states very small corporations don not need a lawyer in
small claims court and certainly not in TV courts. BTW, most people on
Usenet are old enough to know this but small claims courts didn't exist
until the 60's or 70's. I think people just sucked it up.

I don't think any of these shows deal with child custody, but mostly
money.

Huh?

A restraining order is a legally binding enforced boundary, is it not?
The court doesn't seem to be a legal court but more of a reality show.

How can that restraining order possibly be legally binding?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

On 4/26/2024 8:58 AM, micky wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if
a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell unlimited internet.

Decades ago, before an international trip, I bought my first laptop and
the night before I was to leave, I was trying to load it. I had dial-up
or dsl. Of course I could copy everything to a usb drive, if they
existed then, but I found I could connect to some neighbor's wifi and it
made things go much faster. I know he didn't have to pay extra.

By the time I got home, iirc, he had a password on it. I was very
lucky.

Any "unlimited" Internet is actually limited. Any time the transit bandwidth you're using, is more than the value of the account monthly billing, you're going to "receive a letter" about your "excess usage". For example, on some Internet here, the limit used to be 400GB a month. The "Unlimited" account now might be like 1TB -- it just does not state it that way.

A picture hosting site, may have rented server space for a reasonably fee.
It may have included an "unlimited" service. Well, when the server ran up
a $30,000.00 bill for the ISP, the ISP just sent the $30K invoice
straight to the customer, just like that. So much for "unlimited". The site had to add advertising to their offering, to cover off charges.

It turns out "water is wet" and "gravity is a thing".

If a deal is too good to believe, you're going to find out what
the deal really was, soon enough. Any time the Internet charge starts
to exceed the monthly billing, you've painted a target on yourself.
A "nice" ISP might send you a friendly warning not to do that, almost immediately. But some are quite happy to have you step in pooh and
"get a bill at the end of the month". Imagine the shocked look on
your face, if you open a letter and it says "you owe us thirty thousand".
That would spoil your whole day. I don't think there are enough
quarters under sofa cushions to cover that.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

Chris wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if >>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
unlimited internet.

Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for and had no right to use it.

My ISP (BT, in the UK) has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
channel on a standard SSID.
They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.

It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not
knowing how.

My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
with massive downloads.

Ed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 16:22:34 -0000 (UTC),
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state
of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if >>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
unlimited internet.

Irrelevant to the case.

It's irrelevant to the court case, but it's not irrelevant to the point
I was making!. ;-)

The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for
and had no right to use it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:00:14 +0100, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

Chris wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state >>>> of Florida is in the background. So I'm sure they use Florida laws.

Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to that, if >>>> a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck. Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
unlimited internet.

Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay for >> and had no right to use it.

My ISP (BT, in the UK)

Does no one speak in words anymore!

has hotspots all over the place. These are simply
other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
channel on a standard SSID.
They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.

It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not >knowing how.

My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
with massive downloads.

Ed

Here, Xfinity (Comcast) has something like that. It's mostly for their
own customers and I forget how it is for others. I have a tendency to
go on out of town trips without taking the address of where I'm going,
and 10 or 20 years ago I drove to Pennsylvania and had to find some
hotspot like that to look up where the hamfest was. It must have been
before smartphones.

This past March, I was away for a week and in a parking lot at Walmart
in Florida and I had time to use my computer for the first time, and
before I had turned on hotspot on my phone, the laptop downloaded my
email using an unlocked xfinity hotspot (even though I still don't have
that). When I turned on my hotspot I could see that it worked at 3x
the speed or more. Walmart lets people park over night, even in
campers. This lot had about 100 cars there all night, in a lot that
held 800 or 1000. Some must have been workers working inside the store,
but at least a couple, plus me, were sleeping in their car. I don't
know who the other cars belonged to.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

On 2024-04-26 2:00 p.m., Ed Cryer wrote:

Chris wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:41:26 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

Watching the video (I like these shows and used to tape the People's
Court, but not anymore) I see that on this show, the seal of the state >>>> of Florida is in the background.   So I'm sure they use Florida laws. >>>>
Although since there is no appeal, because the parties agree to
that, if
a judge made a mistake, you'd probably be stuck.  Read the contract.

I didn't know there were still places in the USA that didn't just sell
unlimited internet.

Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't
pay for
and had no right to use it.

My ISP (BT, in the UK) has hotspots all over the place. These are simply other people's routers, which have been pre-configured with a public
channel on a standard SSID.
They're pretty loud; I've used a few. You login with your usual BT ID.

It is possible to remove the public channels, but very few do that, not knowing how.

My personal opinion is that I like it; very sociable. But I can see how
some asshole might find it good fun to monopolise his neighbour's wifi
with massive downloads.

Ed

For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

On 4/26/2024 3:38 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

Opinions are like ass holes. Everyone has one. (Dirty Harry)

--
Stand With Israel!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/04/2024 21:38, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

Link please here where he said this crap. Did he say wireless service should
be free at he point of inception? IOW ISP should give it away free of
charge , never mind their huge investment in infrastructure. Chinese
communism under chairman Mao gave away everything free but also workers
had to work for free to get those freebies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, alt.internet.wireless

Chris,

Irrelevant to the case. The neighbour was using a service he didn't pay
for and had no right to use it.

I hope you noticed he took a double-pronged attack approach :

He claims he's allowed to use whatever enters his home*.
Well, it stopped coming thru the wall, so there is nothing he could use anymore. Case closed.

* I would like to see him claim so with his gas, water and electricity. :-)

But the second part is that he somehow seems to demand "payment" for the
"loud music" he claims he was subjected to. I've not seen anything about
his audacity of that after-the-fact demand.

I also have not seen the judge tell the guy to pay for all his time (years?)
of leeching.

And no, I don't enjoy watching court cases (on youtube or otherwise).
Sorry.


By the way, if you like stories like that - people claiming all kinds rights from others - you might enjoy https://notalwaysright.com/ . A warning
though : there are also a lot of "feel good" stories in there. You can just skip them ofcourse. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 2024-04-26 6:36 p.m., Jack wrote:

On 26/04/2024 21:38, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

For what it's worth, Richard Stallman of GNU has said that it is
unethical for us to keep our wireless services private, and that we
should keep them open so that anyone can use them.

Link please here where he said this crap. Did he say wireless service should be free at he point of inception? IOW ISP should give it away free of
charge , never mind their huge investment in infrastructure. Chinese communism under chairman Mao gave away everything free but also workers
had to work for free to get those freebies.

<https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2295/why-did-richard-stallman-recommend-not-to-use-passwords>

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11

On 26/04/2024 06:15, Judge Porter wrote:

While living next to his neighbor, Jennifer Everett, for the last few
years, Rick Conners has been using her wifi without her knowledge. After
Ms. Everett protected her wifi access with a password, Mr. Conners has
been demanding that she return his access to her internet. After denying
his request, Mr. Conners decided to sue her and claims that since he is subjected to her loud music, he should be allowed to access her wifi
because after all, the signal much like the music bleeds through the
walls and into his residence.

https://youtu.be/0LMEL6_b15o?si=Nar2iGKyXpm4Zf8V

It is not done to use the wifi of a neighbor. Ofcourse she protected her
wifi with a password.
And if he have problems with his neighbors music, he should complain
about that.

Fokke

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gU3VuLCAyOCBBcHIgMjAyNCAxNzoxMDo1NCArMDEwMCwgQ2hyaXMgPGl0aGlua2lhbUBnbWFp bC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+T24gMjYvMDQvMjAyNCAxOTowMCwgRWQgQ3J5ZXIgd3JvdGU6DQoN Cjw8c25pcHBlZD4+DQoNCj4+IA0KPj4gTXkgSVNQIChCVCwgaW4gdGhlIFVLKSBoYXMgaG90c3Bv dHMgYWxsIG92ZXIgdGhlIHBsYWNlLiBUaGVzZSBhcmUgc2ltcGx5IA0KPj4gb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxl J3Mgcm91dGVycywgd2hpY2ggaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHByZS1jb25maWd1cmVkIHdpdGggYSBwdWJsaWMg DQo+PiBjaGFubmVsIG9uIGEgc3RhbmRhcmQgU1NJRC4NCg0KIFRoYXQgdXNlZCB0byBiZSB0aGUg Rk9OIG5ldHdvcmssIHRoZW4gaXQgZ290IHNsdXJwZWQgdXAgYnkgQlQsIG5vdw0KQlQvRUUuIEkn bSBwcm9iYWJseSBmaXZlIG9yIHNpeCBtZXJnZXJzIGJlaGluZC4gDQoNCj4+IFRoZXkncmUgcHJl dHR5IGxvdWQ7IEkndmUgdXNlZCBhIGZldy4gWW91IGxvZ2luIHdpdGggeW91ciB1c3VhbCBCVCBJ RC4NCg0KIE1pbmUgd2FzIHNvIG9sZCBpdCBoYWQgYSBGT04uY29tIGlkZW50aXR5LiBJIGFsbG93 ZWQgMjUlIG9mIG15DQpiYW5kd2lkdGggdG8gYmUgdXNlZCBieSB0aGUgcHVibGljIGFuZCBJIHdh cyB0aGVuIGFsbG93ZWQgdG8gdXNlIDI1JQ0Kb2YgYW55IEZPTiByb3V0ZXIgb24gdGhlIHBsYW5l dCB3aGVuIEkgd2FzIG91dCB0cmF2ZWxsaW5nLiANCg0KIEl0IHdhcyBsaWtlIGhhdmluZyBteSBy b3V0ZXIgbW92ZSB3aXRoIG1lLiBTb3J0IG9mIGxpa2UgbXkgb3duDQpwZXJzb25hbCBob3RzcG90 IGV4Y2VwdCB0aGVpciBGT05zIHdlcmUgc3RhdGljIGFuZCBsaW1pdGVkLiANCg0KPj4gDQo+PiBJ dCBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byByZW1vdmUgdGhlIHB1YmxpYyBjaGFubmVscywgYnV0IHZlcnkgZmV3 IGRvIHRoYXQsIG5vdCANCj4+IGtub3dpbmcgaG93Lg0KDQogWWVzLCBidXQgaWYgeW91IGRvbid0 IHNoYXJlIHRoZW4geW91IGRvbid0IGdldCB0byBzaGFyZS4gSWYgeW91IHdlcmUNCmEgbWVhbnks IHlvdSBjb3VsZG4ndCB1c2UgRk9OIHJvdXRlcnMgaW4gTmV3IFplYWxhbmQgb3IgRW5nbGFuZCB3 aGVuDQpyb2FtaW5nIGFib3V0LiANCg0KIEl0IHdhcyBhIGNvbW11bml0eSBzaGFyaW5nIHByb2pl Y3QgdGhpbmd5LiBTbyBmYXIgYXMgSSBrbm93LCBpdA0Kd29ya2VkIHdlbGwuIA0KDQo+PiANCj4+ IE15IHBlcnNvbmFsIG9waW5pb24gaXMgdGhhdCBJIGxpa2UgaXQ7IHZlcnkgc29jaWFibGUuIEJ1 dCBJIGNhbiBzZWUgaG93IA0KPj4gc29tZSBhc3Nob2xlIG1pZ2h0IGZpbmQgaXQgZ29vZCBmdW4g dG8gbW9ub3BvbGlzZSBoaXMgbmVpZ2hib3VyJ3Mgd2lmaSANCj4+IHdpdGggbWFzc2l2ZSBkb3du bG9hZHMuDQogDQogVGhhdCdzIG5vdCBwb3NzaWJsZS4gVGhleSBvbmx5IGdldCAyNSUgb2YgdGhl IGN1dC4gVGhleSBjb3VsZA0KbW9ub3BvbGlzZSB0aGF0IHF1YXJ0ZXIgc28gdGhhdCBhIHRoaXJk IHBhcnR5IGNvdWxkbid0IHVzZSB5b3VyIEZPTg0KZGV2aWNlIHdoaWxlIHZpc2l0aW5nIHJlbGF0 aXZlcyBuZWFyYnkgYnV0IHRoYXQncyBqdXN0IGxpa2UgYW55IGhvdGVsLA0KcmFpbHdheSBzdGF0 aW9uLCBidXMgc3RhdGlvbiBvciBjb2ZmZWUtc2hvcCB3aS1maS4gSXQncyB0aGUgVHJhZ2VkeSBP Zg0KVGhlIENvbW1vbnMuIFRoZXJlJ3MgYWx3YXlzIHNvbWUgZ3JlZWR5LCBzZWxmaXNoLCB1bnRo aW5raW5nIHNoaXRlIHdobw0Kc3BvaWxzIGl0IGZvciBldmVyeW9uZS4gDQoNCiBMaWtlIHRoZSBh cnNlaG9sZXMgd2hvIHRha2UgZmlmdHkgYm94ZXMgb2YgY2VyZWFsIGZyb20gRm9vZCBCYW5rcy4g IA0KDQogT2gsIGFuZCBqdXN0IHRvIGFzc3VhZ2Ugc29tZSB3b3JyaWVzLCB0aGV5IHdvdWxkIGJl IHVzaW5nICp5b3VyKg0Kcm91dGVyIHRvIGRvd25sb2FkIHRoZWlyIHBvcm4gYnV0ICp0aGVpciog dXNlcmlkLiBZb3Ugd291bGRuJ3QgYmUNCmN1bHBhYmxlLiBBbmQgeW91IGNvdWxkIGFsd2F5cyBy ZXN0cmljdCB0aGVpciBhY2Nlc3MuIA0KDQo+DQo+VGhhdCBkb2VzIGV4aXN0IGFuZCBpcyBpbmNs dWRlZCBhcyBhIGJlbmVmaXQgb2YgdGhlIHBhY2thZ2UgeW91J3JlIG9uIA0KPndoZXRoZXIgdGhh dCdzIEJUIG9yIG90aGVyd2lzZS4NCg0KIEl0IHN0aWxsIHdvcmtzPyBDb29sLiANCiANCj4NCj5U b3RhbGx5IGRpZmZlcmVudCB0byB0aGUgbGVnYWwgKHNpYykgY2FzZSBoZXJlLiBUaGUgbmVpZ2hi b3VyIHdhcyBub3QgDQo+cGF5aW5nIGZvciBhbnl0aGluZy4NCg0KIEhhZCBzaGUgaGFkIGEgRk9O IHJvdXRlciwgYW5kIGhhZCBoZSBoYWQgb25lLCB0b28sIHRoZXkgY291bGQgYm90aA0KaGF2ZSBz aGFyZWQgZWFjaCBvdGhlcidzIEZPTiAyNSUgb2YgdGhlaXIgYmFuZHdpZHRocywgdGhvdWdoLCBh cw0KbmVpZ2hib3VycywgdGhhdCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gaWRpb3RpYy4gDQoNCiBIYWQgaGUg c3RvbGVuIGhlciBGT04gd2l0aG91dCBoYXZpbmcgaGlzIG93biBGT04gaXQgd291bGQgaGF2ZSBi ZWVuDQp0aGUgc2FtZSBhcyB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgY2FzZSwganVzdCB3aXRoIEZPTiBpbiB0aGUg bWlkZGxlLiBIZSB3b3VsZA0Kc3RpbGwgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGEgdGhpZWYuIA0KDQogRk9OIHdhcyBj b29sLiANCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBKLg0K

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/29/2024 4:16 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:

Chris wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:10:54 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

That does exist and is included as a benefit of the package you're on
whether that's BT or otherwise.

  It still works? Cool.

It's now called BT Wi-fi
https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it-

That picture looks like something from WWII. An RAF control pool as Spitfires and Hurricanes battle it out with the Luftwaffe over the skies of southern England; and Lancaster bombers limp back home across the Channel.

Ed

The silly URL has a hyphen character on the end, and if you
look carefully at your browser bar, the hyphen is missing.
This caused the ladies from the 1940's to show up in the photo.

https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it-

Put the hyphen character back on the end of the link, and the
ladies can go back to oiling their Spitfires :-)

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/29/2024 12:08 PM, Chris wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 4/29/2024 4:16 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:

Chris wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:10:54 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>

That does exist and is included as a benefit of the package you're on >>>>>> whether that's BT or otherwise.

  It still works? Cool.

It's now called BT Wi-fi
https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it- >>>>

That picture looks like something from WWII. An RAF control pool as
Spitfires and Hurricanes battle it out with the Luftwaffe over the skies >>> of southern England; and Lancaster bombers limp back home across the Channel.

Ed

The silly URL has a hyphen character on the end, and if you
look carefully at your browser bar, the hyphen is missing.
This caused the ladies from the 1940's to show up in the photo.

https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it-

Put the hyphen character back on the end of the link, and the
ladies can go back to oiling their Spitfires :-)

I've no idea what you guys are talking about? The link above works fine for me.

You must have a magical browser then. The URL above does not contain
the ending hyphen in the address. Below is the copied link. The
descriptor shows it, but it is not actually in there.

<https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it>

This is the URL with the hyphen actually in the address

<https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it->

--
Stand With Israel!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

T24gTW9uLCAyOSBBcHIgMjAyNCAwNzoxOTozNiAtMDAwMCAoVVRDKSwgQ2hyaXMgPGl0aGlua2lh bUBnbWFpbC5jb20+DQp3cm90ZToNCg0KPkpvaG4gPE1hbkB0aGUua2V5Ym9hcmQ+IHdyb3RlOg0K Pj4gT24gU3VuLCAyOCBBcHIgMjAyNCAxNzoxMDo1NCArMDEwMCwgQ2hyaXMgPGl0aGlua2lhbUBn bWFpbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+IA0KPj4+IFRoYXQgZG9lcyBleGlzdCBhbmQgaXMgaW5jbHVk ZWQgYXMgYSBiZW5lZml0IG9mIHRoZSBwYWNrYWdlIHlvdSdyZSBvbiANCj4+PiB3aGV0aGVyIHRo YXQncyBCVCBvciBvdGhlcndpc2UuDQo+PiANCj4+ICBJdCBzdGlsbCB3b3Jrcz8gQ29vbC4gDQo+ DQo+SXQncyBub3cgY2FsbGVkIEJUIFdpLWZpDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnQuY29tL2hlbHAvYnJv YWRiYW5kL3doYXQtaXMtYnQtd2ktZmktYW5kLWhvdy1kby1pLWdldC1pdC0NCg0KIE9oLCByaWdo dCwgdGhhbmsgeW91LiA6KQ0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSi4gDQo=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:44:06 -0000 (UTC),
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:

On 4/29/2024 12:08 PM, Chris wrote:

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

On 4/29/2024 4:16 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:

Chris wrote:

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:10:54 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

That does exist and is included as a benefit of the package you're on >>>>>>>> whether that's BT or otherwise.

  It still works? Cool.

It's now called BT Wi-fi
https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it- >>>>>>

That picture looks like something from WWII. An RAF control pool as
Spitfires and Hurricanes battle it out with the Luftwaffe over the skies >>>>> of southern England; and Lancaster bombers limp back home across the Channel.

Ed

The silly URL has a hyphen character on the end, and if you
look carefully at your browser bar, the hyphen is missing.
This caused the ladies from the 1940's to show up in the photo.

https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it-

this is the link I clicked on, and it works fine, using Firefox.

then if I go to the url field, erase the hyphen and click again, I get
the WWII picture. I hope my girl is still waiting for me when I get
home, but I admit those British girls are pretty attractive. What to
do, what to do?

Put the hyphen character back on the end of the link, and the
ladies can go back to oiling their Spitfires :-)

I've no idea what you guys are talking about? The link above works fine for >>> me.

You must have a magical browser then. The URL above does not contain
the ending hyphen in the address.

Yes it does. I can see it in the above quote and the link resolves
correctly here.

Below is the copied link. The
descriptor shows it, but it is not actually in there.

<https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it>

That's not the link I posted. I suspect it may be your newsreader that's >trimming the url incorrectly.

That, or the web browser. Whoever heard of a url that ends in -
anyyhow? It will weaken the war effort.

This is the URL with the hyphen actually in the address

<https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/what-is-bt-wi-fi-and-how-do-i-get-it->

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/1/2024 3:37 PM, micky wrote:

That, or the web browser. Whoever heard of a url that ends in -
anyyhow? It will weaken the war effort.

It's like digging holes in the back yard and covering
them with green nylon carpeting.

There's all sorts of things in computing you should
not be doing. Yet, there are people we pay money to,
for their subject-matter-expertise, who go around
digging those holes in the garden and throwing the
green nylon carpet over the hole. Then snickering a bit
when you fall in.

It means that Micky, an ordinary user, has to be a
"URL parsing genius", in order to use the web.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/2/2024 2:43 AM, Chris wrote:

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:44:06 -0000 (UTC),

That, or the web browser. Whoever heard of a url that ends in -
anyyhow? It will weaken the war effort.

What's wrong with it? It's a valid character so a URL can end with any
valid character.

One of the purposes of using a minimum of character set features
in file systems, is so that things don't inadvertently blow up.

You never leave a loose chad, hanging off the end of a file name. Never.
Just as you don't leave a period on the end of a filename
(because that's not allowed, but with a little malice, you
can actually manage to do it and then not be able to delete it).

One day, I was doing a recursive operation in a tree, and there
was a "Save As Web Page Complete" folder, that happened to be
thick with Hungarian characters in the file names. The third party
tool I was using, stopped dead when it "couldn't find file xxx".
And that is because between loading the file name and trying to use
it, something didn't translate. The string it was passing to the
file system, was not a match for the filename.

I had to start the operation over again, after the folder was deleted.

I don't paste Hungarian characters into file names.

I don't even put 0x20 "space" characters in file names.
Even if I wrote scripts that put quotes around datapath
strings, there would still be some situation where I
would have regrets about being careless.

The filenames I use, would work in two OSes, and they'd also
work in three OSes if I still used the third one.

The principle then is:

"Things you do on a computer should be human-readable
and they should be non-combustible"

And this all started long ago, when I was using Macs most
of the time, and Windows ran in a VM. And eventually, when the
day came I had a Mac and a Win PC at home, suddenly things I
moved from one machine to the other, would break. And that
was "filename length" as the root cause. I had to
study everything moved in one direction, with extra care,
as if a filename was too long, the unpacking software would
just "snip off the extra character" and not tell anyone.
Until you'd discover the damage later. It was at that time,
that it was becoming obvious that you had to keep your
head down when working with this stuff. Or the "snipper of death"
would get your file. Filenames today have generous lengths,
and only saving .mp3 files in a browser causes heartburn today.

There is nothing wrong with using a hyphen as a delimiter. These are OK.

This-is-a-test
This-is-a-test.txt

Whereas this is a bad idea. No matter what punctuation you might
choose as the last character (like an asterisk perhaps). You can
easily be booted into Linux, and add an "allowed" character, then
boot up Windows and something is now broken. That is why your choices
should be a "subset" when runs everywhere.

This-is-s-test- # Whether it's a hyphen or any other punctuation,
This-is-a-test-.txt # it does not belong on the end of the filename component

This isn't allowed

This-is-a-test.

What's funny, is when I tried to add that file to the D: drive,
it warns me that the file may be unusable. And then it strips the
period off and stores the file. And if I edit the filename and add
the period again, it no longer warns me and just removes the period.

A fun thing to do then, is boot another OS and put the period back.
Then boot back into Windows.

Paul

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)