misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 1 topic - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* OT: My personal test of 20 free offline Android gps map routing applications
- 26 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/245df0dfbccb1f4c?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: My personal test of 20 free offline Android gps map routing
applications
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/245df0dfbccb1f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 11:14 am
From: The Real Bev


On 12/23/2013 10:36 AM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:56:26 +0000, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>> Can you explain the purpose of an offline map routing program?
>
> To do map routing when (a) you don't have a data plan, or (b) when
> you're far from a cellular signal.
>
> I don't have a data plan on my cell phone.

If you don't use the phone much, T-Mobile gives you a pre-paid plan for
$10/year which gives you ~30 additional minutes which roll over every
year once you've bought $100 worth of time. Talkatone gives you VOIP to
any ordinary phone as long as you have wifi (that doesn't block VOIP, of
course). Not good for compulsive babblers, of course, but perfect for
people who only make "I'll be there in 5 minutes, don't leave" etc.
calls. I've got something like 700 minutes and I'll get 30 more in
February. My greatest fear is that T-Mobile will be absorbed by
somebody who eliminates the $10 plan :-(

> So I have to be a bit more clever about how to get my map
> directions once I get passed, oh, about the end of my driveway.
>
>> I use the Google Navigation app and my issue isn't data usage,
>> it's how badly the GPS sucks the life out of the battery.
>
> Agreed. GPS sucks that power, making my phone hot!
>
> I have to keep my Samsung Galaxy S3 on the cigarette lighter
> 3.1 Amp dual-port USB charger when the GPS is turned on; otherwise,
> that puny battery is dead within a couple of hours.

I can run GPS on my BLU Dash 4.5 all day. I hate seeing remaining
battery power less than 50%, but it's not a problem as long as I can
recharge it overnight.

Worst problem is the minimal internal storage and refusal to use the
external card to store/run apps :-(

>> What is the advantage of an offline navigation app?
>
> Only two that I can think of:
> a) Works for people (like me) who don't have a data plan
> b) Works when you're out in the boondocks
>
>> Since that time I've used the app a number of times when walking in
>> unfamiliar locations.
>
> You have to try the Google "My Tracks" hiking app! It's really
> nice for topographical hikes, like those SMS and I have out here
> in the mountains.

I tried using that, but it seemed to drop out quite a bit. 'GPS Status'
seems to help maintain GPS contact, as well as showing which satellites
are being used, but I have no explanation for why that might be.

Real nuisance to have to wait for the first fix, which takes between 2
and 5 minutes :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However,
this is not necessarily a good idea...."




== 2 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 11:21 am
From: Danny D'Amico


On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:04:54 -0800, SMS wrote:

> I decided to ante up for the paid version of
> CoPilot when it was on sale (and it's on sale again now
> for $7 for USA Premium).

I just opened up my CoPilot trialware which confirmed
your $7 "Holiday Sale" but I have a question, being a frugal
consumer.

The offer doesn't explicitly state "TTS" (text to speech)
road names. It talks about "voice guidance".

In the past, I've been burned by buying, for example, the
Magellan Roadmate, which had the one but not the other; and
I had to buy a Garmin nüvi just to get both.

So, I learned, if the box does not explicitly state TTS
spoken street names, then the "voice guidance" isn't as useful.

Having said that, here's the exact words of the offer, which,
to me, imply they don't have TTS spoken road names for that $7.

Worse yet, they "imply" that the $7 is for a one-year license
only - albeit - I have to infer that from the blurb below ...

--- begin verbatim --- transcribed off my Android phone ---
Holiday Sale - Up to 30% off CoPilot
Start the New Year Headed in the Right Direction!
Wherever you or your loved ones are driving in 2014,
CoPilot's got you covered. With quality offline maps stored
on your phone/tablet, and clear turn-by-turn directions,
you cna navigate safely into the New Year.

30% off select CoPilot Premium apps from now until
January 6th!

CoPilot GPS customers - Get 30% off (that's just $6.99!)
unlimited use of voice-guided, turn-by-turn navigation and
3D maps from now until January 6th!

Happy Holidays
--- end verbatim --- transcribed off my Android phone ---





== 3 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 3:50 pm
From: "Danny D."


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:14:40 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> If you don't use the phone much, T-Mobile gives you a pre-paid plan for
> $10/year which gives you ~30 additional minutes which roll over every
> year once you've bought $100 worth of time.

I've had that T-Mobile plan in the past, and it's pretty good.

In fact, I had Verizon for my first (analog) phone, and, used
Verizon for years - that is - until they thought it was funny
to restart my 2-year contract under different terms simply
because I had a broken phone swapped out under their repair
plan.

So, I had moved to AT&T - whom I had for a few years - until they
thought it was funny to charge me for a data plan I didn't want on
what they arbitrarily call a smart phone.

So, I moved to T-Mobile, and have been using them ever since,
without a data plan, and buying my smart phones on the net. I've
studied them extensively, and know exactly which Android phones
are the best value under $200 total cost brand new, taking into
account variant system memory, RAM, display, and CPU power:
- Nexus 4 (at the $200 price drop)
- Moto G (orders taking now)
- LG Optimus L9
- LG Optimus F3

T-Mobile also allows automatic WiFi calling when you're at
home, but you need a good antenna inside the house (which is
the topic of a different thread on alt.internet.wireless that
I'll tell you the punch line, which is the Ubiquiti UniFy
access point:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Aelectronics%2Ck%3Aunifi+access+point&keywords=unifi+access+point&ie=UTF8&qid=1387842268

> Talkatone gives you VOIP to any ordinary phone as long
> as you have wifi

I have Talkatone but the only time *I* use it is when
my niece, studying overseas, uses it to call from her
cell phone to mine. College kids always know how to save
money!

> My greatest fear is that T-Mobile will be absorbed by
> somebody who eliminates the $10 plan :-(

When I switched from AT&T to T-Mobile, I was worried AT&T
would swallow T-Mobile and we'd lose the ability to to not
have to have a data plan!





== 4 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 4:04 pm
From: sms


On 12/23/2013 10:17 AM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:04:54 -0800, SMS wrote:
>
>> No one calls the actual road G2 (the county road number), it's
>> Lawrence Expressway, and if you asked 100 people where road G2
>> is probably only two or three would know.
>
> Hi SMS,
> Long time, no see. (Someday, we should meet, face to face,
> mano e mano)...
>
> Anyway ...
>
> I know Lawrence Expressway rather well, having worked at NSM
> in my earlier days, over by Kifer. I agree. Nobody would call
> it G2, just like nobody in California seems to know what a
> mile marker is nor what an exit number is (nor the direction
> that all exits count in). They *do* call it "the" 101, though.
> :)

I was at NSM for many years too, 1993-2000. And I never use "the." I'm
not from Southern California.

> SMS:
> I have one bit of confusion about CoPilot speech.
> It seemed to me, that during my 14-day trial, it only spoke
> spoken directions (i.e., turn left, turn right, etc.); but
> not TTS road names (i.e., turn left onto G2, turn right onto
> Lawrence Expressway, etc.).

Interesting you should mention that because I found that on my tablet it
speaks street names and my phone it doesn't. I need to check that again
as perhaps a recent update removed the TTS.





== 5 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:27 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:00:42 -0500, Art Todesco <actodesco@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 12/23/2013 6:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> Danny D'Amico <dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Wholly OT: I will respond to questions, and queries, but otherwise this
>>> will be the only post on this topic for my friends on a.h.r who may be
>>> interested in offline map routing programs.
>>>
>> ...Lots of good info snipped...
>>
>> Can you explain the purpose of an offline map routing program?
>
>Offline map routing is used if you don't have a data plan or you are in
>an area with no cell service. You typically get the map before leaving,
>using wifi.

I just discovered (having driven 600mi yesterday) that even on-line
routing doesn't require cell service the entire route. It seems to
download the maps needed for the entire trip at the beginning. My
cell phone doesn't connect to the data network when it's plugged into
USB. I didn't pay attention and plugged in the power before waiting
for it to connect to the cell network so didn't have a data connection
all day. I still had navigation the entire trip, though.


>>
>> I use the Google Navigation app and my issue isn't data usage, it's how
>> badly the GPS sucks the life out of the battery.
>Yes, that's true. But that's what car chargers are used for. If I'm
>going to use it for a long time, I plug in.

Sure. The more the phone does, the more power it sucks down. Data
service and the display are big power consumers. My phone won't last
a half hour in navigation mode if it's not connected to power.

>> What is the advantage of an offline navigation app?

Doesn't require *any* data connection. The maps are self-contained,
just like a stand-alone GPS unit.

>> BTW...I was in NYC for a business trip last year. While walking through
>> Central Park, I saw a sign for an app that allowed you to take a walking
>> tour of the park, with GPS. It opens with a map of the park, and when you
>> choose My Location it pinpoints where you are in the park, right down to
>> the walking path level. Well, a few months later SWMBO and I were walking
>> through a park while on vacation in California. We came to a T in the path
>> we weren't sure which way to go. I opened the Central Park app, which
>> opened with a map of Central Park, as expected. I tapped My Location and
>> the map changed to our exact location and we figured out which way to go.
>> Since that time I've used the app a number of times when walking in
>> unfamiliar locations.
>>




== 6 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:51 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:

> I still had navigation the entire trip, though

What program were you using for that navigation?

If it was Google Maps, it can route, if you start with routing,
but it can't change that route, nor do a POI or address search
once you're on the route.

If it's some other program, it might have the state map already
downloaded, which is what all the offline programs do.





== 7 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:52 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:

> The more the phone does, the more power it sucks down. Data
> service and the display are big power consumers. My phone won't last
> a half hour in navigation mode if it's not connected to power.

Hmmm... I didn't realize data service consumes power.

Are you sure about that?

Certainly, on my Samsung Galaxy S3, the GPS consumes the power
so much that the battery won't last 2 hours with GPS running
and no external source of power.





== 8 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:54 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:

>>> What is the advantage of an offline navigation app?
>
> Doesn't require *any* data connection.
> The maps are self-contained,
> just like a stand-alone GPS unit.

Yup!

In a couple of years, I can't imagine Garmin, TomTom, & Magellan
still selling tons of dedicated GPS units.

They'll need to either go where the money is (e.g., aviation,
military, commercial, automotive assembly, etc.), or, write
kick-butt Android/iPhone apps.

I can imagine the marketing guys saying "We don't want to go
the way of Kodak, now do we?" ...





== 9 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:55 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:04:20 -0800, sms wrote:

> I was at NSM for many years too, 1993-2000. And I never use "the." I'm
> not from Southern California.

I was in building D. I won't say no' more, otherwise the NSA will be
on to me ... Too bat TI took 'em over ... and Burr Brown ... sigh.
All the analog icons ... dead. Turned into CAD departments. :)





== 10 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 5:58 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:04:20 -0800, sms wrote:

> Interesting you should mention that because I found that on my tablet it
> speaks street names and my phone it doesn't. I need to check that again
> as perhaps a recent update removed the TTS.

Interesting.

I scanned the CoPilot advertisement, and, it *might* be that you have
to pay *twice* to get *both* the spoken directions and street names.

It seems, but I'm not sure, that the spoken directions come first,
and, then, if you pay more? ... Then you get the spoken street names.

It's all so confusing ...

What I *do* know is that, in my first 14 days of testing CoPilot on
Android, it did NOT speak street names. It only spoke directions.

voice guidance => turn left in 500 feet
TTS => turn left in 500 feet onto Lawrence Expressway





== 11 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 6:17 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:51:12 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> I still had navigation the entire trip, though
>
>What program were you using for that navigation?

The Google (I think) app that comes on my (Verizon) Droid Razr.

>If it was Google Maps, it can route, if you start with routing,
>but it can't change that route, nor do a POI or address search
>once you're on the route.

I checked the route beforehand and knew where I was going. No need to
update it. Well, until I got is "lost" out in the middle of Southern
Illinois. Dumb program! YOY do they even *think* about routing
people, driving cross-country, down one-lane county cow paths?!

>If it's some other program, it might have the state map already
>downloaded, which is what all the offline programs do.

No, just the normal maps. I was worried about losing data connection
in the middle. Turns out that it doesn't matter if you're not
changing anything. The point being that "online" navigation isn't as
fragile as I (and many others, I'm sure) suspected. It works quite
well (above exception noted).




== 12 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 6:19 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:52:16 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> The more the phone does, the more power it sucks down. Data
>> service and the display are big power consumers. My phone won't last
>> a half hour in navigation mode if it's not connected to power.
>
>Hmmm... I didn't realize data service consumes power.

>Are you sure about that?

Sure, if it's transferring data, it's consuming power. The processor
is also working harder.

>Certainly, on my Samsung Galaxy S3, the GPS consumes the power
>so much that the battery won't last 2 hours with GPS running
>and no external source of power.

GPS, alone, shouldn't take that much power. My next phone (probably
at the end of next month) will be a RAZR MAXX, for that reason,
though.




== 13 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 6:23 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 01:54:06 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<dannyd@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:27:24 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>> What is the advantage of an offline navigation app?
>>
>> Doesn't require *any* data connection.
>> The maps are self-contained,
>> just like a stand-alone GPS unit.
>
>Yup!
>
>In a couple of years, I can't imagine Garmin, TomTom, & Magellan
>still selling tons of dedicated GPS units.
>
>They'll need to either go where the money is (e.g., aviation,
>military, commercial, automotive assembly, etc.), or, write
>kick-butt Android/iPhone apps.

Already been done.

>I can imagine the marketing guys saying "We don't want to go
>the way of Kodak, now do we?" ...

Any company, if it doesn't reinvent itself will go that way. The
question is when, and are they willing to compete against themselves
(and their sacred, i.e. milk, cows) to delay the inevitable.




== 14 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 8:57 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:19:52 -0500, krw wrote:

> My next phone (probably
> at the end of next month) will be a RAZR MAXX, for that reason,
> though.

I'm gonna buy the Moto G, for a nephew, for a belated
Christmas gift.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it
doesn't have an external SD card slot.

Sigh... Google.





== 15 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 8:58 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:23:57 -0500, krw wrote:

>>They'll need to either go where the money is (e.g., aviation,
>>military, commercial, automotive assembly, etc.), or, write
>>kick-butt Android/iPhone apps.
>
> Already been done.

Well then, we should all short the Garmin (et. al.) stock!

:)





== 16 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 8:58 pm
From: The Real Bev


On 12/23/2013 03:50 PM, Danny D. wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:14:40 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> If you don't use the phone much, T-Mobile gives you a pre-paid plan for
>> $10/year which gives you ~30 additional minutes which roll over every
>> year once you've bought $100 worth of time.
>
> I've had that T-Mobile plan in the past, and it's pretty good.

Except for the coverage :-( Minimal inside my house (sometimes none),
but OK out in front of my neighbor's house. Perfect, right?
Fortunately I don't need it at home. Also nothing on my favorite ski
slope, although my friend's Verizon works fine. Oh well.

> In fact, I had Verizon for my first (analog) phone, and, used
> Verizon for years - that is - until they thought it was funny
> to restart my 2-year contract under different terms simply
> because I had a broken phone swapped out under their repair
> plan.
>
> So, I had moved to AT&T - whom I had for a few years - until they
> thought it was funny to charge me for a data plan I didn't want on
> what they arbitrarily call a smart phone.

I canceled AT&T LD when they wanted to charge me for NOT using it.
Ultimately we canceled their land line and bought an Ooma device. Screw
you, AT&T. Been a long time since you were a reputable organization.
Decades.

> So, I moved to T-Mobile, and have been using them ever since,
> without a data plan, and buying my smart phones on the net. I've
> studied them extensively, and know exactly which Android phones
> are the best value under $200 total cost brand new, taking into
> account variant system memory, RAM, display, and CPU power:
> - Nexus 4 (at the $200 price drop)
I think I rejected Nexi because of missing external SDcard slot.
Probably a bad mistake.

> - Moto G (orders taking now)
> - LG Optimus L9
> - LG Optimus F3

I always thought LG was cheesy. Is this a mistake too?

> T-Mobile also allows automatic WiFi calling when you're at
> home, but you need a good antenna inside the house(which is
> the topic of a different thread on alt.internet.wireless that
> I'll tell you the punch line, which is the Ubiquiti UniFy
> access point:
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Aelectronics%2Ck%3Aunifi+access+point&keywords=unifi+access+point&ie=UTF8&qid=1387842268
>
>> Talkatone gives you VOIP to any ordinary phone as long
>> as you have wifi
>
> I have Talkatone but the only time *I* use it is when

Not much use for it since all the people I know have free LD and would
let me use their phone if I had to make an LD call. Good on vacation,
though.

> my niece, studying overseas, uses it to call from her
> cell phone to mine. College kids always know how to save
> money!

I knew somebody who was friends with Captain Crunch.

>> My greatest fear is that T-Mobile will be absorbed by
>> somebody who eliminates the $10 plan :-(
>
> When I switched from AT&T to T-Mobile, I was worried AT&T
> would swallow T-Mobile and we'd lose the ability to to not
> have to have a data plan!

I really hate AT&T.

--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first one I'd give it to.






== 17 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 9:24 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 04:57:42 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<danny@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:19:52 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> My next phone (probably
>> at the end of next month) will be a RAZR MAXX, for that reason,
>> though.
>
>I'm gonna buy the Moto G, for a nephew, for a belated
>Christmas gift.
>
>The only thing I don't like about it is that it
>doesn't have an external SD card slot.

There's that but worse, the Droid Razr doesn't have a replaceable
battery. It's only a couple of years, but still.

>Sigh... Google.

Indeed.




== 18 of 26 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 23 2013 9:26 pm
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 04:58:28 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<danny@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:23:57 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>They'll need to either go where the money is (e.g., aviation,
>>>military, commercial, automotive assembly, etc.), or, write
>>>kick-butt Android/iPhone apps.
>>
>> Already been done.
>
>Well then, we should all short the Garmin (et. al.) stock!

I certainly wouldn't own stock in a company that's lost it's primary
market. Only a few have recovered.





== 19 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 4:50 am
From: Art Todesco


On 12/23/2013 1:29 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:19:51 -0500, Art Todesco wrote:
>
>> I've been using the google app in my android phone. I've
>> found that in many cases, they give several names of the streets,
>> including common name, state number, county number, etc.
>
> Google Maps is fantastic, *if* you have a data plan
> (and if you're traveling too far out in the boonies)!
>
> Google Maps stink, if you don't have a data plan.
> a) It's a pain to download tiles for offline use
> b) They only last 30 days before Google deletes them
> c) Even so, the program won't route offline
> d) And it won't find POIs offline
>
> So, I still recommend Google Maps for offline use, mainly for
> the accuracy; but, it's only useful if you thought ahead enough
> to download the tiles where you'll be away from data (which, for
> me, is at the end of my driveway).
>
> On the topic of usability, if you have a data plan, Google Maps
> is very usable. The display is large and intuitive. About the
> only thing missing is the ability to easily force it to remind
> you about your next turn, even if it's 25 miles away, at the touch
> of a button, like the dedicated GPS Nav apps do.
>
>> The google app got us back with no trouble
>> Of course, that not to say that GPS apps are totally infallible.
>> Any GPS app is just one more tool in the toolbox.
>
> Understood.
>
> Note that you clearly have a data plan (I don't); so, I would
> ask you what you use when you get too far from cellular signals?
> Of course, you'll say paper maps - which I agree with - but, what
> I'm saying is that these offline apps are still useful just in
> case you go out of your carrier's signal area.
>
> If you needed to download just one app for offline use, I'd
> suggest CoPilot, but, since you don't like it, I'd suggest
> MapFactor as your backup for when you don't have data signals.
>
Yes I have finally moved into the 2000s (this year) with a data plan. I
also do a little RV traveling, emphasis on little, and it comes in handy
when RV parks don't have wifi. I even used it at the Disney World
campground, even though I had one of their cable modems while staying
there, because I wanted to return the modem a day early so I didn't have
a lot to do on the last day there. I use an app to allow my laptop to
use the data plan via wifi. As for the Google app, I once set up a
destination which was about 20 miles away, up a mountain. It routed ok
because I was at the base of the mountain and had a cell signal, albeit
weak. But as I drove up the mountain, I lost the cell signal and, as
you indicated couldn't complete the route. But, once I approached the
town near the destination, it found a cell and completed with no
problem. As you indicated, you are at the mercy of having a cell
signal. The good thing is that when traveling, cell service is usually
quite good on the interstates, even though a half mile or so off the
interstate, there might be almost no cell signal in some areas. BTW, my
navigator (wife) likes to have a map of every area we go. I don't
usually bother. And, the reason we got lost trying to find an RV park
was because it looked so easy on the paper map ... should have used the
GPS, even if only a backup for 'paper' knowledge. That said, there are
plenty of RV campgrounds that have a statement in their ads that read
something like, "don't use GPS to get here, you'll get lost!"




== 20 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 8:05 am
From: SMS


On 12/23/2013 5:55 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:04:20 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> I was at NSM for many years too, 1993-2000. And I never use "the." I'm
>> not from Southern California.
>
> I was in building D. I won't say no' more, otherwise the NSA will be
> on to me ... Too bat TI took 'em over ... and Burr Brown ... sigh.
> All the analog icons ... dead. Turned into CAD departments. :)

I was in building 16 (gone) and then building M (which almost no one has
heard of but it's still there). The strangest building was the back part
of Home Depot, but they finally got rid of that as well.





== 21 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 8:19 am
From: SMS


On 12/23/2013 10:53 AM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:27:26 -0800, SMS wrote:
>
>>> What is the advantage of an offline navigation app?
>>
>> Data usage.
>> Online mapping uses a tremendous amount of data.
>
> This is a good point, which, I, not having a data plan (and therefore,
> never having worried about data usage), didn't realize until you had
> said that.
>
> Q: Why bother with offline GPS freeware mapping programs?
> A: Saves on data usage if you don't have an unlimited data plan.
> A: Works when you have no data plan.
> A: Works when you have no cellular signal.

When traveling outside the U.S., where data roaming is extremely
expensive and even prepaid SIM card data is expensive, it's really nice
to have an offline GPS mapping program where you can download maps for
the area you're traveling in (even if the maps aren't free). Even if
you're not driving in these other countries, and traveling by some other
means, a mapping app is very useful, especially when you're not on a
gawd-awful organized tour.

Incidentally, that's one reason to be selective when choosing a tablet.
The Wi-Fi only iPads don't have a GPS chip, nor do the el-cheapo Android
tablets sold in drugstores for $79 or so. But once you reach the $129
level you can get Android tablets with a GPS. The Nexus 7 has one. The
Asus MeMo has one. We also have two $109 Lenovo tablets that have one. A
7" tablet is also a much nicer GPS replacement when driving than a 3.5"
screen phone. On one vehicle I installed a holder for my Nexus 7 using a
Panavise mount
<http://www.panavise.com/index.html?pageid=1&id1=30&--wosectionsdatarq=30&indashaction=-->,
some plastic from Tap Plastics, and some bits of hardware. No suction cups!





== 22 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 9:09 am
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:50:45 -0500, Art Todesco <actodesco@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 12/23/2013 1:29 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:19:51 -0500, Art Todesco wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using the google app in my android phone. I've
>>> found that in many cases, they give several names of the streets,
>>> including common name, state number, county number, etc.
>>
>> Google Maps is fantastic, *if* you have a data plan
>> (and if you're traveling too far out in the boonies)!
>>
>> Google Maps stink, if you don't have a data plan.
>> a) It's a pain to download tiles for offline use
>> b) They only last 30 days before Google deletes them
>> c) Even so, the program won't route offline
>> d) And it won't find POIs offline
>>
>> So, I still recommend Google Maps for offline use, mainly for
>> the accuracy; but, it's only useful if you thought ahead enough
>> to download the tiles where you'll be away from data (which, for
>> me, is at the end of my driveway).
>>
>> On the topic of usability, if you have a data plan, Google Maps
>> is very usable. The display is large and intuitive. About the
>> only thing missing is the ability to easily force it to remind
>> you about your next turn, even if it's 25 miles away, at the touch
>> of a button, like the dedicated GPS Nav apps do.
>>
>>> The google app got us back with no trouble
>>> Of course, that not to say that GPS apps are totally infallible.
>>> Any GPS app is just one more tool in the toolbox.
>>
>> Understood.
>>
>> Note that you clearly have a data plan (I don't); so, I would
>> ask you what you use when you get too far from cellular signals?
>> Of course, you'll say paper maps - which I agree with - but, what
>> I'm saying is that these offline apps are still useful just in
>> case you go out of your carrier's signal area.
>>
>> If you needed to download just one app for offline use, I'd
>> suggest CoPilot, but, since you don't like it, I'd suggest
>> MapFactor as your backup for when you don't have data signals.
>>
>Yes I have finally moved into the 2000s (this year) with a data plan. I
>also do a little RV traveling, emphasis on little, and it comes in handy
>when RV parks don't have wifi. I even used it at the Disney World
>campground, even though I had one of their cable modems while staying
>there, because I wanted to return the modem a day early so I didn't have
>a lot to do on the last day there. I use an app to allow my laptop to
>use the data plan via wifi. As for the Google app, I once set up a
>destination which was about 20 miles away, up a mountain. It routed ok
>because I was at the base of the mountain and had a cell signal, albeit
>weak. But as I drove up the mountain, I lost the cell signal and, as
>you indicated couldn't complete the route. But, once I approached the
>town near the destination, it found a cell and completed with no
>problem. As you indicated, you are at the mercy of having a cell
>signal.

I just found that this isn't true, at least for Verizon's Google(?)
app. As long as you don't change the routing, it's fine. I've been
routed through the boonies before but never lost navigation. I
thought I had data coverage in the middle of nowhere but probably had
the same thing then.

>The good thing is that when traveling, cell service is usually
>quite good on the interstates, even though a half mile or so off the
>interstate, there might be almost no cell signal in some areas. BTW, my
>navigator (wife) likes to have a map of every area we go. I don't
>usually bother. And, the reason we got lost trying to find an RV park
>was because it looked so easy on the paper map ... should have used the
>GPS, even if only a backup for 'paper' knowledge. That said, there are
>plenty of RV campgrounds that have a statement in their ads that read
>something like, "don't use GPS to get here, you'll get lost!"

My wife can't read a map. I don't bother with them anymore because
the GPS apps are so good. With the GPS of a decade ago, I could
believe them. Not so much anymore.




== 23 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 9:51 am
From: Nate Nagel


On 12/24/2013 12:09 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:50:45 -0500, Art Todesco <actodesco@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/23/2013 1:29 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:19:51 -0500, Art Todesco wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been using the google app in my android phone. I've
>>>> found that in many cases, they give several names of the streets,
>>>> including common name, state number, county number, etc.
>>>
>>> Google Maps is fantastic, *if* you have a data plan
>>> (and if you're traveling too far out in the boonies)!
>>>
>>> Google Maps stink, if you don't have a data plan.
>>> a) It's a pain to download tiles for offline use
>>> b) They only last 30 days before Google deletes them
>>> c) Even so, the program won't route offline
>>> d) And it won't find POIs offline
>>>
>>> So, I still recommend Google Maps for offline use, mainly for
>>> the accuracy; but, it's only useful if you thought ahead enough
>>> to download the tiles where you'll be away from data (which, for
>>> me, is at the end of my driveway).
>>>
>>> On the topic of usability, if you have a data plan, Google Maps
>>> is very usable. The display is large and intuitive. About the
>>> only thing missing is the ability to easily force it to remind
>>> you about your next turn, even if it's 25 miles away, at the touch
>>> of a button, like the dedicated GPS Nav apps do.
>>>
>>>> The google app got us back with no trouble
>>>> Of course, that not to say that GPS apps are totally infallible.
>>>> Any GPS app is just one more tool in the toolbox.
>>>
>>> Understood.
>>>
>>> Note that you clearly have a data plan (I don't); so, I would
>>> ask you what you use when you get too far from cellular signals?
>>> Of course, you'll say paper maps - which I agree with - but, what
>>> I'm saying is that these offline apps are still useful just in
>>> case you go out of your carrier's signal area.
>>>
>>> If you needed to download just one app for offline use, I'd
>>> suggest CoPilot, but, since you don't like it, I'd suggest
>>> MapFactor as your backup for when you don't have data signals.
>>>
>> Yes I have finally moved into the 2000s (this year) with a data plan. I
>> also do a little RV traveling, emphasis on little, and it comes in handy
>> when RV parks don't have wifi. I even used it at the Disney World
>> campground, even though I had one of their cable modems while staying
>> there, because I wanted to return the modem a day early so I didn't have
>> a lot to do on the last day there. I use an app to allow my laptop to
>> use the data plan via wifi. As for the Google app, I once set up a
>> destination which was about 20 miles away, up a mountain. It routed ok
>> because I was at the base of the mountain and had a cell signal, albeit
>> weak. But as I drove up the mountain, I lost the cell signal and, as
>> you indicated couldn't complete the route. But, once I approached the
>> town near the destination, it found a cell and completed with no
>> problem. As you indicated, you are at the mercy of having a cell
>> signal.
>
> I just found that this isn't true, at least for Verizon's Google(?)
> app. As long as you don't change the routing, it's fine. I've been
> routed through the boonies before but never lost navigation. I
> thought I had data coverage in the middle of nowhere but probably had
> the same thing then.
>
>> The good thing is that when traveling, cell service is usually
>> quite good on the interstates, even though a half mile or so off the
>> interstate, there might be almost no cell signal in some areas. BTW, my
>> navigator (wife) likes to have a map of every area we go. I don't
>> usually bother. And, the reason we got lost trying to find an RV park
>> was because it looked so easy on the paper map ... should have used the
>> GPS, even if only a backup for 'paper' knowledge. That said, there are
>> plenty of RV campgrounds that have a statement in their ads that read
>> something like, "don't use GPS to get here, you'll get lost!"
>
> My wife can't read a map. I don't bother with them anymore because
> the GPS apps are so good. With the GPS of a decade ago, I could
> believe them. Not so much anymore.
>

GPS systems are getting better, but the maps are still quite inaccurate
in some areas.

"online" maps like Google or even Waze's crowdsourced stuff is better,
but even then there can be problems e.g. I had an issue trying to find a
local store because Bing search results for that store had a nonexistent
street name for the address and instead of Waze coughing it sent me to
the geographic center of that zip code.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel




== 24 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 11:21 am
From: krw@attt.bizz


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:51:24 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
wrote:

>On 12/24/2013 12:09 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:50:45 -0500, Art Todesco <actodesco@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/23/2013 1:29 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:19:51 -0500, Art Todesco wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been using the google app in my android phone. I've
>>>>> found that in many cases, they give several names of the streets,
>>>>> including common name, state number, county number, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Google Maps is fantastic, *if* you have a data plan
>>>> (and if you're traveling too far out in the boonies)!
>>>>
>>>> Google Maps stink, if you don't have a data plan.
>>>> a) It's a pain to download tiles for offline use
>>>> b) They only last 30 days before Google deletes them
>>>> c) Even so, the program won't route offline
>>>> d) And it won't find POIs offline
>>>>
>>>> So, I still recommend Google Maps for offline use, mainly for
>>>> the accuracy; but, it's only useful if you thought ahead enough
>>>> to download the tiles where you'll be away from data (which, for
>>>> me, is at the end of my driveway).
>>>>
>>>> On the topic of usability, if you have a data plan, Google Maps
>>>> is very usable. The display is large and intuitive. About the
>>>> only thing missing is the ability to easily force it to remind
>>>> you about your next turn, even if it's 25 miles away, at the touch
>>>> of a button, like the dedicated GPS Nav apps do.
>>>>
>>>>> The google app got us back with no trouble
>>>>> Of course, that not to say that GPS apps are totally infallible.
>>>>> Any GPS app is just one more tool in the toolbox.
>>>>
>>>> Understood.
>>>>
>>>> Note that you clearly have a data plan (I don't); so, I would
>>>> ask you what you use when you get too far from cellular signals?
>>>> Of course, you'll say paper maps - which I agree with - but, what
>>>> I'm saying is that these offline apps are still useful just in
>>>> case you go out of your carrier's signal area.
>>>>
>>>> If you needed to download just one app for offline use, I'd
>>>> suggest CoPilot, but, since you don't like it, I'd suggest
>>>> MapFactor as your backup for when you don't have data signals.
>>>>
>>> Yes I have finally moved into the 2000s (this year) with a data plan. I
>>> also do a little RV traveling, emphasis on little, and it comes in handy
>>> when RV parks don't have wifi. I even used it at the Disney World
>>> campground, even though I had one of their cable modems while staying
>>> there, because I wanted to return the modem a day early so I didn't have
>>> a lot to do on the last day there. I use an app to allow my laptop to
>>> use the data plan via wifi. As for the Google app, I once set up a
>>> destination which was about 20 miles away, up a mountain. It routed ok
>>> because I was at the base of the mountain and had a cell signal, albeit
>>> weak. But as I drove up the mountain, I lost the cell signal and, as
>>> you indicated couldn't complete the route. But, once I approached the
>>> town near the destination, it found a cell and completed with no
>>> problem. As you indicated, you are at the mercy of having a cell
>>> signal.
>>
>> I just found that this isn't true, at least for Verizon's Google(?)
>> app. As long as you don't change the routing, it's fine. I've been
>> routed through the boonies before but never lost navigation. I
>> thought I had data coverage in the middle of nowhere but probably had
>> the same thing then.
>>
>>> The good thing is that when traveling, cell service is usually
>>> quite good on the interstates, even though a half mile or so off the
>>> interstate, there might be almost no cell signal in some areas. BTW, my
>>> navigator (wife) likes to have a map of every area we go. I don't
>>> usually bother. And, the reason we got lost trying to find an RV park
>>> was because it looked so easy on the paper map ... should have used the
>>> GPS, even if only a backup for 'paper' knowledge. That said, there are
>>> plenty of RV campgrounds that have a statement in their ads that read
>>> something like, "don't use GPS to get here, you'll get lost!"
>>
>> My wife can't read a map. I don't bother with them anymore because
>> the GPS apps are so good. With the GPS of a decade ago, I could
>> believe them. Not so much anymore.
>>
>
>GPS systems are getting better, but the maps are still quite inaccurate
>in some areas.

That statement implies that they all get their information from the
same place, which is nonsense.

>"online" maps like Google or even Waze's crowdsourced stuff is better,
>but even then there can be problems e.g. I had an issue trying to find a
>local store because Bing search results for that store had a nonexistent
>street name for the address and instead of Waze coughing it sent me to
>the geographic center of that zip code.

When we were house hunting (couple of years ago), several of the
mapping companies couldn't find various houses (including the one we
were/are selling). The free Verizon app found them all.





== 25 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 12:14 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 07:50:45 -0500, Art Todesco wrote:

> Yes I have finally moved into the 2000s (this year) with a data plan.

I've got nothing against data plans, but, I'm retired, and spend
99% of my time at home, where I have WiFi.

So, I have all the data I want, except when driving, and I have free
unlimited minutes in effect, because of automatic WiFi calling.

> I use an app to allow my laptop to use the data plan via wifi.

Hmmm... I didn't think you need an app to use WiFi data.

> As you indicated, you are at the mercy of having a cell signal.

That's why I think everyone should, at least, put CoPilot on
their cellphone, even if they do have a data plan. Or Navigator.

Either one will work fine if/when they're out of cellular signal.

> BTW, my navigator (wife) likes to have a map of every area we go.

I recently asked AAA if they still give out maps and the guy
told me he didn't notice any change in the number of maps
sent out. I've got the entire state of California covered,
but, they're all (still) brand new.

> "don't use GPS to get here, you'll get lost!"

Heh heh ... GPS is like following the leader. If you know
better, don't follow. Otherwise, if you don't have a clue,
then follow at your own risk.





== 26 of 26 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 24 2013 12:15 pm
From: Danny D'Amico


On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 00:24:01 -0500, krw wrote:

> the Droid Razr doesn't have a replaceable
> battery. It's only a couple of years, but still.

That's criminal. I always faulted the iPhone for that.





==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 4 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Restore/revive worn windshield wiper blades? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2816e76a45837d7b?hl=en
* On car dealerships (a way they can get more business) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5168c7d20e35d61?hl=en
* Frugal Singles Sites - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7e2a7d9ec9713a6?hl=en
* Fake microsoft "your computer is infected" call - 17 messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc91538c09253cb0?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Restore/revive worn windshield wiper blades?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2816e76a45837d7b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 9:37 am
From: "Bob F"


The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were still
>>> good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>
>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>
> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.

But, you're a skier aren't you?

The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to uselessness
by snow on the way to ski.






== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 3:11 pm
From: The Real Bev


On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were still
>>>> good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>
>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>
>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>
> But, you're a skier aren't you?

Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.

> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to uselessness
> by snow on the way to ski.

Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
<something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.
She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in the
rain, though. Or even in dew.

Actually, looking back to pre-1990, I was up at Table Mountain (across
the street from Mountain High) with my Sentra when it started snowing.
I'd never seen snow falling before, it was really pretty. I was hiring
people and was worried about having to drive back home in the snow. One
of the guys I was hiring was the snowplow driver (who did other things
too) who assured me that I would have no problem, and that if there was
more snow than I felt comfy with he'd precede me down the hill. No
problem. I don't think it was snowing when I left.

--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------
"I just realized how bad the economy really is. I recently
bought a new toaster oven and as a complimentary gift,
I was given a bank." -- L. Legro




== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 5:55 pm
From: "Bob F"


The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were
>>>>> still good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>>
>>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>>
>>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>>
>> But, you're a skier aren't you?
>
> Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
> done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.

Stayed inside???? MY favorite times are when it is snowing. I hate it when the
sun comes out and trashes the powder.

>
>> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to
>> uselessness by snow on the way to ski.
>
> Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
> <something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.

One good spray of cascade slush from another car would cure that habit.

> She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
> matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in
> the rain, though. Or even in dew.

Sounds like just what I need here in Seattle. NOT!






== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 10 2013 10:45 pm
From: The Real Bev


On 11/10/2013 05:55 PM, Bob F wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/10/2013 09:37 AM, Bob F wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 11/09/2013 05:12 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought some TripLEdge blades for my previous car. They were
>>>>>> still good several years later when I had to junk the car
>>>>>
>>>>> How do those things do in the snow? Do they shed it any better?
>>>>
>>>> I've never been snowed on, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> But, you're a skier aren't you?
>>
>> Yes, but Brian Head this year is the only non-SoCal skiing I've ever
>> done, and we stayed inside when it was snowing.
>
> Stayed inside???? MY favorite times are when it is snowing. I hate it when the
> sun comes out and trashes the powder.

No experience. Normal snow quality here is icy corduroy (with holes --
the groomers aren't really religious about eliminating holes) until
maybe 9:30. Then 1.5 hours of really nice snow. Then slush. Best is
when it stayed frozen all night and was groomed after it froze. Few
days like that.

>>> The biggest problem I have with wipers is when they get clogged to
>>> uselessness by snow on the way to ski.
>>
>> Since I've been going with my friend, she drives her little Honda
>> <something> sportscar convertible with the top down and the heater on.
>
> One good spray of cascade slush from another car would cure that habit.

This is SoCal, the roads are generally dry up in the mountains unless
chains are required. That happens only when there's new snow, and our
new snow is NOT powder, although they insist on calling it that. It's
slow and sticky and unpleasant and not worth the trouble of putting on
and taking off the chains and driving 18 miles at 25 mph.

>> She has the fancy soft rubber tires that I've never heard screech no
>> matter how fast she takes the turns. She says they're worthless in
>> the rain, though. Or even in dew.
>
> Sounds like just what I need here in Seattle. NOT!

I had a Dunlop K70 (?) made of cling rubber (I don't know if they still
call it that) on my 1960 Ducati, but I never rode that in wet weather
either.

--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------
Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones.




== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 15 2013 5:16 am
From: bob haller


I bought one of those wiper edge restorers it did NOT work. helped a tad for just a month

rubber detoriates and get hard with time and then cant flex enough to clean well....

considering your safety is at risk new wiper blades are well worth the bucks





==============================================================================
TOPIC: On car dealerships (a way they can get more business)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5168c7d20e35d61?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 3:49 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com




http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,337181

Excerpts from thread:

(by 20cats)

"The car place has been calling and emailing to try to get us to buy a new car. Dammit, when I got the telephone, I forgot to tell them what I thought up!

"Here it is: We will gladly buy a brand new car from you IF you sign a legitimate contract stating that you will never let a brat near us when we are in the waiting room while the car is being serviced. If you fail to adhere to the contract, then the car will be given to us FREE!

"What do you think?"


Response by canadiandragons:

"I think it's a solid idea, but phrase it more professionally. If you get read as a cranky old coot, they won't take you seriously. Here's what I would say:

" 'We are interested in continuing to do business with you, but we have had some bad experiences in your waiting area, and this gives us pause. There has been a rash of unsupervised, badly behaved children in there while we are waiting, and both my husband and myself have found waiting there to be both distressing and highly irritating. As business owners, it is your responsibility to set limits on the behaviour of those on your property. If you can guarantee us that this issue will be dealt with, then we can continue doing business together.'

"Professional, calm, lay out the problem and the solution, offer the carrot. You get taken so much more seriously!"

(end)

Lenona.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Singles Sites
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7e2a7d9ec9713a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 5:04 pm
From: mwm314


Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it actually had members.

Any help appreciated,
Matt




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 12 2013 8:38 pm
From: Michael Black


On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, mwm314 wrote:

> Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have
> members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it
> actually had members.
>
> Any help appreciated,
> Matt
>
Dating is a formal process and is thus not particularly frugal. It's a
fixed ritual, less about getting to know someone and more about flaunting
money. Women on dating sites are likely going to be the ones who expect a
dinner and a movie or soemthing like that, which can not only be
expensive, but may not be a great way to actually get to know someone
(though a movie has the advantage that you don't have to talk for two
hours).

If you volunteer somewhere, you have a chance to meet people who share
that common interest (unless they are "volunteering" to avoid paying fines
or something), and should offer plenty of chance to interact.

Or get involved in something that interests you, you'll find people who
share that same interest. You then get to see something about them before
that formal ritual.

Find the right common interests, and they will be more in tune with being
frugal. Someone concerned with the environment would hopefully not be
concerned that you don't drive a car (whether you do it for frugal or
environmental reasons), while someone not interested in such things might
perhaps find you odd (at the very least) if you don't drive a car.
Someone of the right interest would be more interested in doing
interesting things, that might not necessarily be expensive, rather than
the formal things, that are about money.

The thing is, a frugal date may be a better date than the formal dating,
which is the primary thing, rather than saving money.

Michael





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 15 2013 9:08 am
From: Shoe-Chucker 2


In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1311122332030.18000@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, mwm314 wrote:
>
> > Are there any free or close to free singles sites that actually have
> > members? I tried hotornot and gocupid but the freeer it was the less it
> > actually had members.
> >
> > Any help appreciated,
> > Matt
> >
> Dating is a formal process and is thus not particularly frugal. It's a
> fixed ritual, less about getting to know someone and more about flaunting
> money. Women on dating sites are likely going to be the ones who expect a
> dinner and a movie or soemthing like that, which can not only be
> expensive, but may not be a great way to actually get to know someone
> (though a movie has the advantage that you don't have to talk for two
> hours).
>
> If you volunteer somewhere, you have a chance to meet people who share
> that common interest (unless they are "volunteering" to avoid paying fines
> or something), and should offer plenty of chance to interact.
>
> Or get involved in something that interests you, you'll find people who
> share that same interest. You then get to see something about them before
> that formal ritual.
>
> Find the right common interests, and they will be more in tune with being
> frugal. Someone concerned with the environment would hopefully not be
> concerned that you don't drive a car (whether you do it for frugal or
> environmental reasons), while someone not interested in such things might
> perhaps find you odd (at the very least) if you don't drive a car.
> Someone of the right interest would be more interested in doing
> interesting things, that might not necessarily be expensive, rather than
> the formal things, that are about money.
>
> The thing is, a frugal date may be a better date than the formal dating,
> which is the primary thing, rather than saving money.
>
> Michael

Thanks, good advice.
--
Karma ; what a concept!





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fake microsoft "your computer is infected" call
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc91538c09253cb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 8:35 am
From: "Bob F"


I just got my second one of these calls.

Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has many
infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"

I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type in "inf"
and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He then told me to type
into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I later checked to be a remote access
provider.

At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that was as far
as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.

The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices and noises
in the background.

I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room full
of people doing this.

If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their time.
Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?






== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 8:45 am
From: "Bruce Hagen"



"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l609q6$ceb$1@dont-email.me...
>I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has
> many infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"
>
> I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type in
> "inf" and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He then told
> me to type into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I later checked to
> be a remote access provider.
>
> At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that was
> as far as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.
>
> The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices and
> noises in the background.
>
> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room
> full of people doing this.
>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their
> time. Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?
>


That's been going on for years and they often do call back. Even when you
jerk them around. <G> Probably hoping someone else will answer.

Is it a genuine call from Microsoft?
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2134917/genuine-microsoft


Avoid tech support phone scams
http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online-privacy/avoid-phone-scams.aspx


Don't fall for phony phone tech support
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/don-t-fall-for-phony-phone-tech-support.aspx

--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP 2004 ~ 2010
Imperial Beach, CA









































== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 9:59 am
From: Moe DeLoughan


On 11/13/2013 10:35 AM, Bob F wrote:
> I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer has many
> infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of them"
>

> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a room full
> of people doing this.

One of my sisters was taken in by this, because she was desperate for
help regaining access to her third Gmail account (she keeps losing her
password and totally losing access, thus requiring her to create a new
account). He strung her along using the standard ploy and she bought
into it completely - well, until he told her he needed $300 to clean
her pc and regain her password. She's broke and unemployed. She told
him she didn't have that much in her savings account. He obligingly
lowered the fee to just below what she told him was left in her
savings account. She belatedly acquired some common sense, declined,
and hung up.

He called back. This time the fee was a mere ninety-nine cents. She
refused and hung up again.

He kept calling the rest of the afternoon.

>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste their time.
> Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?

No, because they haven't got a call list. They have sequential
diallers that phone numbers in sequence.

If you annoy them, they're ready and willing to annoy you right back.
Personally, I see nothing to be gained by interacting with criminals.
Safer and faster to just hang up.





== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 11:54 am
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Bruce Hagen:
> - Is it a genuine call from Microsoft?
> http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/pc-help/2134917/genuine-microsoft
>
>
> - Avoid tech support phone scams
>http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security/online-privacy/avoid-phone-scams.aspx
>
>
> - Don�t fall for phony phone tech support
>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytipstalk/archive/2010/03/09/don-t-fall-for-phony-phone-tech-support.aspx

- If somebody calls that you don't know, tell them their life
would be easier if they didn't call people on the Do Not Call
List and hang up.

Personally, if it don't hear what I call "activity" within about a half
second of saying "Hello, this is Pete Cresswell", I say "Hello...Hello",
wait another half second, and hang up.

Seems like dialers take a couple of seconds to alert a telemarketer that
somebody has picked up and the sound (or lack of) on the line is
peculiar to that situation.

I have hung up on two legitimate callers that I know of (who called
right back) in the past year - but that's out of hundreds and hundreds
of other calls.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 2:53 pm
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)"


In message <l60emd$j8u$1@dont-email.me>, Moe DeLoughan
<moe@notmine.null> writes:
[]
>If you annoy them, they're ready and willing to annoy you right back.
>Personally, I see nothing to be gained by interacting with criminals.
>Safer and faster to just hang up.
>
I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?

(Of course if they're calling from say India, it wouldn't help anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.




== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 4:20 pm
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?

IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
police's time.

I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
Do-Not-Call list law.

They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."

Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
pretty much untouchable.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 4:53 pm
From: Metspitzer


On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>
>IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>police's time.
>
>I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>Do-Not-Call list law.
>
>They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>
They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.

>Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>pretty much untouchable.

I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.


The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.




== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 5:40 pm
From: OldGuy


After serious thinking Metspitzer wrote :
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>> I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>> another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>> needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>> UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>>
>> IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>> police's time.
>>
>> I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>> Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>> dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>> Do-Not-Call list law.
>>
>> They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>> have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>> multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>>
> They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
> Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
> and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.
>
>> Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>> pretty much untouchable.
>
> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>
>
> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.

Ok so they are money grubbing aholes.

This is what I have done in the past.
Recently it has not been too annoying so I have it off for now.

I have an PC with voice/FAX modem and software application that
monitors the incoming caller ID. When a call come in it logs the call
and records any messages like an answering machine. I review the
incoming calls and see if any are worthy of responding to. Those that
leave no message and are out of the area I assume are after my wallet
so I put them into the "bad caller" list. The next time they call, the
"This number has been disconnected" tones and message is automatically
played by the software app. For automatic calling machines this
signals to remove my number from their list. For other callers it just
discourages them enough to not bother calling back.
I let the software run for quite a while before activating that feature
so that I do not cut off the important calls.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---




== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 6:19 pm
From: Mark F


(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):

So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
100 other countries?




== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 7:03 pm
From: "Bob F"


Mark F wrote:
> (Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
> protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>
> So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
> the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
> 100 other countries?

Wow! Finally someone comes up with a real reason for the NSA.






== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 13 2013 7:27 pm
From: Metspitzer


On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:40:07 -0800, OldGuy <OldGuy@nospam.com> wrote:

>After serious thinking Metspitzer wrote :
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:20:30 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Per J. P. Gilliver (John):
>>>> I'd be more inclined to be public-spirited and call the police on
>>>> another line, but I suspect they'd not be able to respond in the time
>>>> needed (i. e. for as long as I could string them along). I'm speaking of
>>>> UK police and telecomm. systems; would it be any different in the USA?
>>>
>>> IMHO, speaking as a USA resident, you would be wasting your time and the
>>> police's time.
>>>
>>> I have a collection of lame-sounding letters from the Pennsylvania
>>> Attorney General's office responding to my reports (via their web site
>>> dedicated to that purpose) of callers who violated the state's
>>> Do-Not-Call list law.
>>>
>>> They all say words to the effect of: "The game has changed. These guys
>>> have moved offshore and hide behind VOIP accounts - sometimes with
>>> multiple hops from VOIP account to VOIP account."
>>>
>> They should tell you that when you report numbers to the National No
>> Call List, but they don't. They will let you report a company over
>> and over knowing there is nothing they can do to stop them.
>>
>>> Bottom line, it sounds like unless the perpetrator is really dumb, he is
>>> pretty much untouchable.
>>
>> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
>> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
>> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
>> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
>> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
>> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
>> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>>
>>
>> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.
>
>Ok so they are money grubbing aholes.
>
>This is what I have done in the past.
>Recently it has not been too annoying so I have it off for now.
>
>I have an PC with voice/FAX modem and software application that
>monitors the incoming caller ID. When a call come in it logs the call
>and records any messages like an answering machine. I review the
>incoming calls and see if any are worthy of responding to. Those that
>leave no message and are out of the area I assume are after my wallet
>so I put them into the "bad caller" list. The next time they call, the
>"This number has been disconnected" tones and message is automatically
>played by the software app. For automatic calling machines this
>signals to remove my number from their list. For other callers it just
>discourages them enough to not bother calling back.
>I let the software run for quite a while before activating that feature
>so that I do not cut off the important calls.
>
I thought about trying one of those. I have a drawer full of old
modems, but no computer with one in it currently.

Which app do you use?




== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 5:52 am
From: Moe DeLoughan


On 11/13/2013 6:53 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

> I used to get so many calls from Cardholders Services, I was tempted
> to have my phone disconnected. The strange thing is that the will
> call using the same phone number more than once. I have bought a
> phone that will let you block 30 phone numbers. Blocking the number
> does help, but they call from other numbers too. I wish the phone
> would let you block the name on the caller ID. They use more than one
> caller ID, but they do use the same ones again.
>
>
> The blocking seems to have slowed the calls down, but they still call.
>

That's because these scams are run by multiple independent operators.
It's not just one perp, it's a whole bunch of them. The way it works
is, somebody comes up with the scam and opens a boiler room operation.
Some of the people working the boiler room learn the ropes, realize
they can set up the same operation themselves, and they do so. So the
feds are engaged in a perpetual game of whack-a-mole - shut one
operation down, three more have already opened up.

Remember the contest the FTC held last year to find solutions to
telemarketers? One of the two winning proposals has gone operational.
It's called Nomorobo and is designed to deal with robocalls, which
make up a large percentage of unlawful telemarketing calls. If your
phone service provider is participating in the program, you can sign
up for it. It's free.

Here's an article about it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/block-pesky-illegal-robocallers-220537765.html

and here's the site to register your number:
http://www.nomorobo.com/




== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 7:37 am
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Mark F:
>(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
>protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>
>So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
>the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
>100 other countries?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like they don't need the NSA.

I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.

Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.

IMHO the real solution is challenge-response.

Frequent callers learn which key(s) to press so, if they're quick
enough, they never even hear the prompt. Everybody else gets the prompt
and the first wrong response either hangs up or flips to voicemail.

For home phones, that could be a box that the user buys and installs
between the POTS line and his phone system.

For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
and revenue for them.
--
Pete Cresswell




== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 9:10 am
From: KenK


"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in
news:s4r9895cv3j04dt952f0t5hanja6a1l02p@4ax.com:

> Per Mark F:
>>(Responding to various posts about scammers being off shore,
>>protected by VOIP, and cannot be traced effectively.):
>>
>>So the NSA can't track them in real time and cause trouble for them
>>the next day if they are anywhere in the USA, Europe, India, and about
>>100 other countries?
>
> I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me like they don't need the NSA.
>
> I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
> answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
> hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
> that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.
>
> Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
> involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.
>
> IMHO the real solution is challenge-response.
>
> Frequent callers learn which key(s) to press so, if they're quick
> enough, they never even hear the prompt. Everybody else gets the
prompt
> and the first wrong response either hangs up or flips to voicemail.
>
> For home phones, that could be a box that the user buys and installs
> between the POTS line and his phone system.
>
> For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
> and revenue for them.

That sounds like the best idea yet. No computer on 24/7 required. I hope
someone makes one.


--
"Where there's smoke there's toast!" Anon









== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 9:16 am
From: "Bob F"


Bob F wrote:
> I just got my second one of these calls.
>
> Hi: I'm from microsoft support calling to warn you that your computer
> has many infections...... and I am calling to help you get rid of
> them"
> I played the game with him awhile. He had me start a run box and type
> in "inf" and enter, then told me all those files are problems. He
> then told me to type into the run box www.teamviewer.com, which I
> later checked to be a remote access provider.
>
> At that point, I told him is was great fun wasting his time, but that
> was as far as it goes. He responded with a couple F.U.s and hung up.
>
> The guy was calling from a big operation. There were lots of voices
> and noises in the background.
>
> I wonder how many people get scammed by this? Must be a lot to have a
> room full of people doing this.
>
> If you get such a call, have a little fun too. Let's really waste
> their time. Anyone think my action will get me off their call list?

FWIW, I just got the following from teamviewer after notifying them of the call.
**************************************************
Dear Sir or Madam

We are sorry to hear that you have been contacted in this way.

There have been several cases of systematic fraud using our software,
originating mainly from India. In most cases, private persons from the UK, USA
or Australia are contacted by telephone.
As you described in your e-mail, the similarities of most fraud calls are:

- A person with a strong Indian accent called
- Stating they are from Microsoft or certified by Microsoft (more information
can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/security/online-privacy/msname.aspx - Microsoft will
NEVER make cold calls!)
- Stating they get a lot of reports from the private persons system (viruses
etc.)
- Leading them e.g. to the Windows Event Viewer (Start -> Run -> "eventvwr")
- Offering support and selling a service contract or similar
- Connecting via a Remote Support Tool to fix the "problem"
- Installing free anti-virus tools or doing suspicious actions on the system

They are using free products like ours and several other free anti-virus
systems, charging the customer for installing these. We have already contacted
the vendors of the anti-virus programs used. They are also investigating this
matter.

There have also been several cases of "fake refunds": instead of receiving a
refund payment, money was stolen from the bank accounts in question.

Generally, we recommend victims to contact their bank, a consumer protection
organization and a trustworthy IT support company. In most cases, the payments
that have been made can be refunded by the bank, and any malicious software
installed by the callers can be removed by the IT support company. We can also
determine and block the TeamViewer ID used by the scammers if we are provided
with the victim's ID.

TeamViewer will display a warning message if an incoming connection with a
potential fraudulent background is detected ("Please be careful with unsolicited
calls. Do you know the person you are interacting with at the moment? This
technician is using a free trial version of TeamViewer. Only choose
"trustworthy" if you really know and trust the person you are talking to"). Can
you confirm that you received this warning?

Thank you very much in advance for your reply.

If there is anything else we can help you with or if there are still any open
questions, please feel free to contact us again.

Best regards,

Martin Heinzmann
-Security Representative-

-----------------------






== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 1:10 pm
From: gordonb.9ybid@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)


> I would think they could have a farm of honey pot phones where people
> answer, comply with the caller until it gets down to money changing
> hands, and then do the transaction with specially-issued credit cards
> that serve as evidence once they find out where the recipient is.

Somehow nobody believes me when I give them a credit card number
of "1", last name "God", first name "Almighty". Adam & Eve had
"2" jointly, until she got in trouble with that charge for an apple.

*ANY* credit card ought to be able to provide evidence of who charged
to it, given a complaint of a fraudulent (or even just unrecognized)
charge by the owner of the card.

I think the key to stopping this is to break the banking system
(which probably requires abrogating international treaties on the
subject. This might not be a good idea since the USA is in such a
precarious financial condition). One illegal transaction and all
the money in the account is seized, the card is blacklisted, and
any other cards or bank accounts the person/company has are also
blacklisted. Unfortunately, that requires international cooperation.

> Whatever the solution, it all costs money... and if the NSA got
> involved, I'd call that a major slippery slope.

I'd prefer that the Air Force missile command get involved over the
NSA.

> For cell phones, I'd think the service providers would have to come on
> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
> and revenue for them.

Smartphones have an app (well, there's lots of apps that do this,
from many different companies and for lots of different platforms)
that let you block individual numbers. Either the call is answered
and hung up on, or it's forwarded to voice mail. Many let you
easily block the previous call. And as near as I can tell, the
block list can be pretty long. Storing 100,000 phone numbers to
block may take the same memory as one photo. Some of them also let
you block with wildcards, where you might block a whole area code,
or a group of exchanges.

Bad side: I don't think it can do anything about the drain on your
minutes. It may encourage some wrong-number callers (who don't
think they are being blocked, as they are doing nothing obnoxious)
to keep trying. Then again, they might leave a message, and you
can call back and tell them that you don't deliver pizzas or that
they have Grandma's phone number wrong.

I think some cellphone providers have a web app that can block a
limited number of numbers (say, 8, the number you can block with
"Call Reject" on landline phones where it is available), and these
blocked calls *don't* cost minutes.





== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 14 2013 1:41 pm
From: "(PeteCresswell)"


Per Gordon Burditt:
>> board - which might be a problem since every junk call racks up minutes
>> and revenue for them.
>
>Smartphones have an app (well, there's lots of apps that do this,
>from many different companies and for lots of different platforms)
>that let you block individual numbers. Either the call is answered
>and hung up on, or it's forwarded to voice mail. Many let you
>easily block the previous call. And as near as I can

I am remiss.

I actually have such an app on my cell phone - and haven't gotten a robo
or solicitor call since installing it almost a year ago.... so I wasn't
even thinking about it when I wrote my post.

In part, it crowdsources the identification of telemarketers. There's
more, but I can't spell it out off the top of my head.

The app is named "CallContnrol" and once configured is pretty much
invisible - i.e. there's nothing to do except let it do it's thing.

One might ask "Is it blocking legitimate calls?".

I don't know - Nobody's complained, and I'm just trusting it.
--
Pete Cresswell




==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en